Re: [DISCUSS] 32 bits compilation for Artemis libaio native

:45 PM Clebert Suconic wrote: > > Alright.. thanks guys.. will remove it. > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote: > > +1 remove. Most of the embedded/low-power chips are all 64-bits now. I > > can't imagine in a 32-bit use case that AIO would be signi

Re: HEADS-UP ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3 to be cut Friday the 10th

Ok.. lets hold it.. and I will work on it.

Re: HEADS-UP ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3 to be cut Friday the 10th

I fixed the compatibility issue, and a few other PRs merged. Does anyone see anything else blocking it.. or can we cut activemq artemis 2.6.3 tomorrow? On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:06 AM Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I will have to postpone to Monday... > > I have started working on a c

Re: HEADS-UP ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3 to be cut Friday the 10th

, starting at the mergebase between 2.6.x and master: https://clebertsuconic.github.io/2.6.x-gap.html ^^ This will be helpful to show any missing commits between the two branches. if anyone sees anything missing on 2.6.x let me know please. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:45 AM Clebert Suconic wrote: >

HEADS-UP ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3 to be cut Friday the 10th

know. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Reverting ARTEMIS-1954 - JMSManager refactoring

I"m moving the parser and I reapplied the code. On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > Actually, do we need to support reloading of JMS Topics and Queues. > Those are deprecated already and they should be on the core > configuration. > > Perhaps I sh

Re: [DISCUSS] Reverting ARTEMIS-1954 - JMSManager refactoring

Actually, do we need to support reloading of JMS Topics and Queues. Those are deprecated already and they should be on the core configuration. Perhaps I should place them back and just change the configuration. On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > The redeploym

[DISCUSS] Reverting ARTEMIS-1954 - JMSManager refactoring

The redeployment is broken. I tried to do an easy fix but it seemed there is more to be developed. Please @Justin if you could re-submit the PR after fixing RedeployTest. I tried it as an easy fix but there is some work to be done. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: post-release updates of Artemis download pages

; On 07/12/2018 04:08 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: >>> >>> @Robbie thanks for fixing it.. just came into it and realized you >>> already did it.. thanks >> >> >> Documentation link for 2.6.1 on this page is still broken for me: >> http://activemq.apache

Re: post-release updates of Artemis download pages

those and they all >> live within an outer wrapper div already: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/641671780a10b81419711805519e7a8643688be53705c844ab7520de@%3Ccommits.activemq.apache.org%3E >> >> On 19 June 2018 at 15:59, Clebert Suconic wrote: >>> I will be

Re: post-release updates of Artemis download pages

he.org%3E >> >> A final change is mostly just reducing indent, as I removed the >> wrapper divs (presumably also copied from download.html) for the >> latest entries since the earlier ones dont have those and they all >> live within an outer wrapper div already: >> htt

Re: post-release updates of Artemis download pages

3be341de@%3Ccommits.activemq.apache.org%3E >> >> A final change is mostly just reducing indent, as I removed the >> wrapper divs (presumably also copied from download.html) for the >> latest entries since the earlier ones dont have those and they all >> live within an oute

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.2 Released

I'm pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.2 Downloads are now available at: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/download.html For a complete list of updates: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/release-notes-2.6.2.html This was a maintenance and small release, the release

[DISCUSS] What would have happened if Nexus release failed...

On our release procedures, what would happen if Nexus failed to release the repository? We would need to restart the whole process and another vote to validate checksums, etc.. even if it's the same git TAG? (I could just recover release.properties created and re-upload it.. but that's a

[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.2

Results of the Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.2 release vote. Vote passes with 4 Votes. (3 Binding, 1 Non Binding) Binding: Clebert Suconic Timothy Bish Christopher Shannon Non Binding: Robbie Gemmel Thank you to everyone who contributed and took the time to review the release candidate

Re: post-release updates of Artemis download pages

update the RELEASING.md file to suggest > this but found it already says that, so thought I'd send a mail to > highlight the issue instead. > > Robbie -- Clebert Suconic

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.2

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.2 release. This is a small release, with bug fixes which were cherry-picked from master into 2.6.x branch. For more details, please refer the release notes: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920=12343404

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.6.2 to be released on Monday-18th

lar severity that I'd > also like to see included in 2.6.2 if possible. I've raised > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1940 for this and I'll > make a PR for it shortly. > > Robbie > > On 15 June 2018 at 21:26, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> Saw the

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.6.2 to be released on Monday-18th

sues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1934 included in 2.6.2 > given the issues it creates. > > Robbie > > On 15 June 2018 at 15:50, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> for the current payload: >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/compare/2.6.1...2.6.x &

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.6.2 to be released on Monday-18th

for the current payload: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/compare/2.6.1...2.6.x On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > I will be in vacations one week from now, and I wanted to do a release > before I'm gone for some time. > > If anyone wants to

[HEADS-UP] 2.6.2 to be released on Monday-18th

I will be in vacations one week from now, and I wanted to do a release before I'm gone for some time. If anyone wants to push it back or think this is a short HEADS-UP please let me know.. and I will take your -1 as a volunteering call :) -- Clebert Suconic

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 Released

I'm pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 Downloads are now available at: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/download.html For a complete list of updates: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/release-notes-2.6.1.html The main update to this release was around Clustering for

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 (3rd respin)

Sorry. I had some personal issues I could not finish the website update. Will do it between tonight and tomorrow. Sorry again. On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:41 AM Clebert Suconic wrote: > Vote passes with 5+ Votes (4 Binding, 1 non Binding) > > Clebert Suconic > Christopher Shann

[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 (3rd respin)

Vote passes with 5+ Votes (4 Binding, 1 non Binding) Clebert Suconic Christopher Shannon Timothy Bish Martyn Taylor Francesco Nigro Thanks everybody who took the time to review this. Apologize for the many re-spins this release required. But we got QA well done on this release which is a good

Re: [artemis] Dynamically add cluster connection using JMX/Jolokia?

g that this belongs to the dev list as it is kind-of advanced if > it actually belongs to user I apologise > > Thanks -- Clebert Suconic

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 (3rd respin)

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 release. This is the 3rd Respin and I have fixed the previous issues encountered. This is a micro release, with bug fixes only, where I would like to highlight these fixes: [ARTEMIS-1568] Expired Messages were not transversing clustering

[CANCEL] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 (2nd respin)

PR to fix the issue [1]. > > > Justin > > [1] https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2121 > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > >> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 release. >> >> >> This

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 (2nd respin)

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 release. This is a micro release, with bug fixes only. I would like to highlight these important fixes as part of this release: [ARTEMIS-1568] Expired Messages were not transversing clustering redistribution. (this could affect other

[CANCEL]: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1

Cancelling, For the reason I explained earlier. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > Actually.. -1 > > > I will respin.. the main reason I pushed this release was for the AMQP > & Clustering issue, and the security issue raised by Michael. > It happ

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1

2119 I see no point on having this release... so i will respin it on monday. Sorry about the hassle! On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:43 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1 release. > > > This is a micro release, with bug fixes only. > >

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.1

-artemis.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.6.1 I will update the website after the vote has passed. [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache Artemis 2.4.0 [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Here's my +1 -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release in week.

I'm working on cutting 2.6.1 now.. On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > I have the payload for 2.6.1 pretty much defined here: > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/compare/2.6.0...2.6.x > > > I just want to include the work I'm doing now on s

Re: Custom serialization mechanism for ActiveMQMessages

t: Custom serialization mechanism for ActiveMQMessages > > Hi, > > We would like to use custom serialization on ActiveMQMessages and the > current build of Artemis does not support this. > Would you accept a fork to your repository on GitHub which would allow the > use of custom serial

Re: Custom serialization mechanism for ActiveMQMessages

> After some lengthy debates on chat, but be great if we are looking to re add > back > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release in week.

me know here. On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good point... > > Just created 2.6.x > > > However.. if I need to pick everything from master.. .I will just do > the following: > > git checkout 2.6.x &

Re: Connection TTL

nt and server), that seem irrelevant, exactly for? > > Maybe I'm wrong and this is something different, completely not related > to ttl checking? > > > Thanks, > > Denis > > -- Clebert Suconic

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.0 Released

I'm pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.0 Downloads are now available at: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/download.html For a complete list of updates: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/release-notes-2.6.0.html A detailed list of git commits:

Re: [DISCUSS] Commits report

r, at least moving it > to a different subdir of the dist dev area than the release files > would give the same effect. > > On 21 May 2018 at 19:01, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If we update the Release guide to include the commit report. Is there >

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release in week.

PM, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/21/2018 02:03 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: >> >> As we talked during the voting thread, we will follow up 2.6.0 with a >> short 2.6.1 in 1 week from now. >> >> >> meanwhile... please try to not brea

[HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release in week.

As we talked during the voting thread, we will follow up 2.6.0 with a short 2.6.1 in 1 week from now. meanwhile... please try to not break anything :) -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Commits report

If we update the Release guide to include the commit report. Is there any git repo we could include it, as a sub project of ActiveMQ? The report could actually work on both ActiveMQ and Artemis codebases. On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrot

[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.0

Results of the Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.0 release vote. Vote passes with 6 votes (3 binding and 3 non binding) The following votes were received: Binding: +1 Timothy Bish +1 Christopher Shannon +1 Clebert Suconic Non Binding: +1 Robbie Gemmell +1 Francesco Nigro +1 Howard Gao Thank

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.0

>>> worthy to fix, and re-spin. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mike >> >> >> This seems like a good opportunity to practice turning around a quick 2.6.1 >> release as this is not a blocking issue given it's been in the code for >> quite some tim

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.4

s.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq.git;a=commit;h= >> 165cba235a915cdd40f1735918d646df9a49e521 >> >> Please vote to approve this release. The vote will remain open for 72 >> hours. >> >> [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.4 >> [ ] -1 (provide specific comments) >> >> Here's my +1 >> -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Commits report

gt; > I think it would be useful to have this one on top of the release > > report as well. If nobody opposes I would like to add it to the next > > release report. > > > > The report generator current lives on my github page but it could be > > moved somewhere else if someone bothers about being on my github fork: > > > > https://github.com/clebertsuconic/git-release-report > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

ut I also think it would have been good in this case > given the several prior heads ups served to somewhat mislead. > > On 16 May 2018 at 17:32, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I have been pushing this for a few weeks. I thought it was more than >

[DISCUSS] Commits report

if someone bothers about being on my github fork: https://github.com/clebertsuconic/git-release-report -- Clebert Suconic

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.0

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.0 release. The release notes can be found here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12342903&=12315920 There is a new commits report I made that I'm introducing on this release:

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

at the hotel :). Sorry for any trouble. We can try another one shortly in a few weeks. (2 or 3) On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/16/2018 11:09 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I just tagged as 2.6.0... It's uploading... > > > >

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

I just tagged as 2.6.0... It's uploading... I will cleanup JIRA tonight / tomorrow.. should send the voting thread soon (tonight or tomorrow) On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been clearing the testsuite. Other guys are workin

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

0 commits and > been enough time that I think a 2.6.0 makes more sense > > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Clebert Suconic > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Meanwhile please set your fixes as 2.5.1... i will rename it as 2.6.0 >> before releasing as everything

Re: How can we get/set the message body in an Artemis transformer?

t;> Cheers, >> >> Lionel >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/ >> examples/features/standard/divert/src/main/java/org/ >> apache/activemq/artemis/jms/example/AddForwardingTimeTransformer.java >> -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

Meanwhile please set your fixes as 2.5.1... i will rename it as 2.6.0 before releasing as everything is already filtered there. On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > From the entire set.. we only have fixes.. and 4 enhancements... >

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

es, but there > seems to be enough others in there now that might better fit a 2.6.0 > due to adding new functionality etc. > > Thoughts? > > Robbie > > On 26 April 2018 at 22:46, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

Little snafu today... I'm dealing with a failure in org.apache.activemq.artemis.tests.integration.openwire.amq.RedeliveryPolicyTest.testRedeliveryPolicyPerDestination will send the vote soon. On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I

Re: Webconsole deprecation

and get discussions going. > > Jeff > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Webconsole deprecation

cussion that moves us >> forward. >> >> > Right now, this feels to me like a simple re-hash of the old >> discussion. >> >> > >> >> > Art >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Christopher Shannon < >> >> > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > I think it's time to have the yearly web console deprecation or >> >> > > removal conversation. >> >> > > >> >> > > I realize this conversation has been had multiple times in the past >> >> > > already. However, since those conversations have taken place there >> >> > > has still been no effort by anyone to maintain the webconsole for >> >> > > several years. There continues to be reported bugs against the web >> >> > > console in jira and they are ignored. People also submit PRs to >> >> > > improve the webconsole and they are ignored. >> >> > > >> >> > > In the past there has been a lot of pushback against outright >> removal >> >> > > of the webconsole because there are people who find it useful. I >> >> > > think that is fair so maybe a better approach would be to go the >> >> > > LevelDB route. >> >> > > >> >> > > Perhaps we could just make a note on the website that it is not >> >> > > maintained anymore and is deprecated (and also disable it by >> default) >> >> > > but still include it so users have the option to turn it on if they >> >> > > want? >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

; Are you on track to release by the end of April? > > > > -- > Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Separate commit for Test and Fix on PRs

e. > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:13 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com >> wrote: > >> will I sound crazy if I change my mind here? >> >> I thought it would be improving the PR process.. but on a second >> thought... it won't improve things actu

Re: [DISCUSS] Separate commit for Test and Fix on PRs

commits for the > same bit of work go in, the process of reverting changes becomes more error > prone as the person doing the reverts has to always be looking for the cases > where there was more than one related to the same scope of work. > > >> On 19 April 2018 at 15:10, Cleb

Re: [DISCUSS] Separate commit for Test and Fix on PRs

ugh to > specifically seperate tests out in their own commits to facilitate it. > > Robbie > > On 18 April 2018 at 18:27, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I would appreciate if we separated fixes and tests on Pull Requests. >> >> >> A lo

Re: [DISCUSS] Separate commit for Test and Fix on PRs

damage before. I like PRs just because of that. On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would prefer a squash before merging.. or at least some cleanup > before people submit a PR. > > When reviewing a PR.. it's almost

Re: [DISCUSS] Separate commit for Test and Fix on PRs

gt; > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 18 Apr 2018, at 18:27, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I would appreciate if we separated fixes and tests on Pull Requests. >> >> >> A lot of times i will revert the fixes to validate

[DISCUSS] Separate commit for Test and Fix on PRs

may update the hacking guide with this.. WDYT? -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

15, 2018 at 9:40 PM, pwjenkins <phillip.jenk...@entrustdatacard.com> wrote: > That would be great timing for us if you can do that without messing up your > other plans. Thank you! > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Reopening Pull Requests..

a... I think I know what it is... if you change your commit ID, but the ID of master still the same.. perhaps there are no issues... I would stick to this procedure though.. as it would always work. On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>

Re: [DISCUSS] Reopening Pull Requests..

the PR seems to be completely restored. > > -- > Jiri Daněk > Messaging QA -- Clebert Suconic

[DISCUSS] Reopening Pull Requests..

of your existing branch. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

have been watching for the 2.5.1 release to be announced. Does the release > have a date yet? It looks like before April 20th is reasonable to plan for. > Is that accurate? > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

? I think that’s just > at the border with your 4 weeks. > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 23 Mar 2018, at 13:51, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I won't be able to do it next week... I want to push it in 4 weeks from now. >

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

I won't be able to do it next week... I want to push it in 4 weeks from now. (Unless someone has an urgent need for this release.. on which case i will need someone else to be the release manager as I can't for personal reasons ...) On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.s

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.5.0 Released

I'm pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis . Downloads are now available at: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/download.html For a complete list of updates: http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/release-notes-2.5.0.html Many thanks for all the contributors to this release.

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.5.0

I have updated the svn for the website this morning.. but since then no updates have been picked up by the infra. I will wait 24h before I ping infra on this.. will send the announce when it's ready. On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:

[HEADS-UP] 2.5.1 in one week

delaying for an extra week, let me know... -- Clebert Suconic

[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.5.0

Vote passes with 4 binding votes, and 2 non binding votes. Binding: Clebert Suconic Timothy Bish Christopher Shannon Dejan Bosanac Non Binding: Francesco Nigro Michael Andre Pearce Thank you to everyone who contributed and took the time to review the release and vote. I'll move forward

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.5.0

gt;> >> On 14 Mar 2018, at 09:50, Francesco Nigro <nigro@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> +1 > >> >> > >> >> Compiled and run some tests on it > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Il gio

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.5.0

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.5.0 release. This is a great release, with 190 tasks completed including bug fixes, improvements, new features and additional tasks. I really appreciate everyone's contribution on making this happening. Thank you so much! I would like to

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.0 release some time next week... (after wed)

Since I fixed it.. I will try to cut the release today.. will send it out as soon as it's ready any time now. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it’s importsnt to fix this bug. I broke it and I want to fix it :) > > On T

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.0 release some time next week... (after wed)

I think it’s importsnt to fix this bug. I broke it and I want to fix it :) On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:12 PM Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/08/2018 05:59 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I'm pushing this back to monday...I thought that was an easy fix and i > >

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.0 release some time next week... (after wed)

is 2 hours.. anything other than that will push the release further. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm already on it... i'm working on it. > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Michael André Pearce > <michael.andre.pea...@me.

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.0 release some time next week... (after wed)

re.pea...@me.com> >> wrote: >> >>> @Clebert >>> >>> Someone in the user threads has raised what looks like a blocker if it’s >>> real. >>> >>> Something to do with large messages and broker crashing with >>> 2.5.0-SNAPSH

Re: ActiveMq Artemis crashes when large amqp messages need are delivered

ent from my iPhone > >> On 7 Mar 2018, at 19:36, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If you need really large messages.. can you use the core protocol clients? >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Clebert Suconic >> <clebert.suco

Re: ActiveMq Artemis crashes when large amqp messages need are delivered

If you need really large messages.. can you use the core protocol clients? On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don’t think so. We don’t stream large messages in AMQP yet. We just > convert them as a single chunk. It should work as

Re: ActiveMq Artemis crashes when large amqp messages need are delivered

> End Thread dump > > *********** > > > I tested the same setup with a QPID C++ broker. It had no problems even > with much larger messages. > > Kind Regards, > Andreas > > > > > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Docker Image

ding that Apache docker account back > then. > > I was mostly talking to John D. Ament, that seemed pretty knowledgeable > about the account and about what was expected. > John if you are reading, perhaps you could let us know how things are right > now in that regard? > >

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.0 release some time next week... (after wed)

t; > -- > Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] 2.5.0 release some time next week... (after wed)

before the release can be done? > > > Justin > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Michael André Pearce < > michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > >> Great news. >> >> Do we have a list of things we need to attack? >> >> Sent from my iPh

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Docker Image

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Arthur Naseef wrote: > I know how to create a docker image, and do so with a maven build. > > And getting an image into a registry isn't too hard. That's the "docker > push" command. I suspect the docker-maven-plugin may be able to do that as >

Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Docker Image

cough... cough... anyone have any ideas on how we can do that? :) On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry if I am being completely ignorant here. how can we deliver > official docker images? > > > Consider the following:

[HEADS-UP] 2.5.0 release some time next week... (after wed)

${SUBJECT} All we need now is to fix the examples...some are broken... and we are in a good place for the release I think. -- Clebert Suconic

[DISCUSS] Artemis Docker Image

them? There are a couple ones out there on the docker hub.. but i was looking to have an official build.. signed by us. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Website Discussion

I believe your message got hidden by the many Pull Requests here. I don't mean to hijack your thread.. but I still believe we need to have a have a separate list for those. On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I won't be able to do march

Re: Website Discussion

ose interested how about Monday 5th March, 20:00 UTC? > > Cheers > Martyn -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.3

; * Ran mvn apache-rat:check and no missing headers found. > > * Ran broker from the binary archive and exercised the webconsole > > * Built from source and ran the sanity tests, plus AMQP, STOMP and > > Karaf-itests. > > > > -- > > Tim Bish > > twitter: @tabish121 > > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > > > > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Video call on ActiveMQ Artemis

r hosting our first Artemis videoconference call! > > > > Bruce > > > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > I will send the video tomorrow. > > > > Does anybody have the link? I was not able to find it anywhere > > -- > Jiri Daněk > -- Clebert Suconic

[DISCUSS]/[HEADS-UP] Release Time Artemis

It's been a while since last release... Although I won't be able to do anything in the next 2 weeks... anyone willing to volunteer to do it sooner? if not I will do it in 2 weeks. -- Clebert Suconic

Re: Version compatibility from ActiveMQ_all5.14.5.jar to Active_MQ Client 5.14.5.jar

working again. Please let us know what is the difference between > ActiveMQ_all5.14.5.jar to Active_MQ Client 5.14.5.jar. > > Thanks in advance. > > Regards, > Mohanakshi > > > > -- > Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html > -- Clebert Suconic

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

Actually, I will keep this as is.. .the user should decide what driver to use... I will keep configurations by default as derby (if the user doesn't provide anything else on the CLI).. but that's just for easy of use. On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

hat goes in and what stays out, and how some things are allowed to be added > if remotely have their own lifecycle. At the moment it’s quite obvious it’s > unclear. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 18 Jan 2018, at 21:31, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com&g

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding Derby as a dependency

The example will download it through maven dependencies.. and install it at the created server/lib. On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will remove the dependency to avoid

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >