we should have it
> on per default on Java > = 11.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Le 16/06/2020 à 14:34, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> > I have come to realise that the newer ErrorProne config for JDK8 added
> > as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2109 doesn't
> > ac
I have come to realise that the newer ErrorProne config for JDK8 added
as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2109 doesn't
actually work presently, i.e it isn't running. I have prepared a
couple of alternative changes that do get it working again, but they
themselves have issues
his?
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 11:38 AM Emmanuel Hugonnet wrote:
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Le 05/06/2020 à 16:51, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> > > Building the javadoc wouldnt work for me on OpenJDK 11, probably for
> > > the reasons I covered at
&
hose to be able to be flexible enough? or is
> there any magic settings perhaps to relax this?
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 6:16 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > Going back to the error-prone dep being added to all the modules, if
> > those need to stay I think it would be good
Going back to the error-prone dep being added to all the modules, if
those need to stay I think it would be good for the scope+optional
elements be added as well? I see its being governed in the
dependencyManagement addition, but the various modules appear to have
those elements for their existing
Can I ask again about the seemingly broken errorprone-javac config on
the branch, which looks to be using a non-existent javac.version
property config:
"-J-Xbootclasspath/p:${settings.localRepository}/com/google/errorprone/javac/${javac.version}/javac-${javac.version}.jar
Looking at
compilation with error-prone
> and jboss logging annotation processor., and future annotation
> processors.
>
> It was the less intrusive way from my point of view.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Le 29/05/2020 à 18:10, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
> > Is it really necessary to add error-p
Is it really necessary to add error-prone definition to almost every
module? Presumably theres some module it isnt defined in. No other
workarounds for that?
I also wonder about this bit:
Excellent to see some work on this!
Whilst I obviously have Java 8 around since most components target it
currently and so its my main build env, I do also have envs that
default to 11 and as you later said its really annoying having to
tweak the env back to 8 just to build a given component
Its best not to add the new release and remove the old release at the
same time if possible, since it breaks download links on the website
one way or the other over the period as the mirrors update and the
site is refreshed. Any given mirror will now only have one of these
releases as they update,
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 10:59, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 18:16, Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.13.0
> >
> > Downloads are now available at:
> > http://ac
The release has now been synced to Maven Central.
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 15:59, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> There's an issue on synchronizing Maven currently:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-20333
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:56 AM Jo Stenberg wrote:
> >
> > Artemis 2.13.0 is
on).
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 15:38, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> JB hasnt actually voted yet that I can see. Obviously its implied, but
> it needs stated.
>
> On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 15:35, Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
> >
> > There are actually 3 Binding Votes...
> >
&g
JB hasnt actually voted yet that I can see. Obviously its implied, but
it needs stated.
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 15:35, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> There are actually 3 Binding Votes...
>
> JB, Christopher Shannon and myself.
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:33 AM Robbi
Since there arent currently enough binding +1 votes cast to pass,
unless another is forthcoming I'd ask infra what the options are for
unwinding it, which might be more than usual given the Central sync is
broken.
Aside: When you close a staging repo on Nexus, there is a field to add
a
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 18:16, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> I'm pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.13.0
>
> Downloads are now available at:
> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/download.html
>
>
> This version has some major improvements on AMQP Performance. We
> performed
y 21, 2020 at 7:30 PM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > The source release / convenience binary mirrors updating is the bit
> > that takes up to 24hrs (typically 18+ is near enough) to get good
> > coverage, so if you or another PMC member proceeded with that bit
> > there do
lebert Suconic
> > Timothy Bish
> > Cristopher Shannon
> > Gary Tully
> >
> >
> > Non Binding:
> > Howard Gao
> > Francesco Nigro
> > Domenico
> > Atri Sharma
> > Robbie Gemmell
> >
> >
> > Thank you to everyone w
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 17:26, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.13.0 release.
>
>
> This release will include these features:
>
> [ARTEMIS-2666] - Add management for duplicate ID cache
> [ARTEMIS-2726] - Implement min/max expiry-delay
> [ARTEMIS-2738]
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 19:19, Krzysztof wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to use the Closing Message Group feature using AmqpNetLite. In
> docs it is stated that I should set "JMSXGroupSeq" to -1. In AMQP protocol
> it maps however to group-sequence property which is of unsigned long type.
To be
Tim's reference will cover this, but essentially what you are
describing would only typically happen as part of doing exactly-once
if the client and broker had negotiated a receiver-settles-second link
rcv-settle-mode. The broker doesnt support that mode to my knowledge,
and so will indicate it is
As with the other times this was discussed, I think 1) makes most
sense still. If you think the bits are in a releaseable state now,
then it seems sensible to proceed with the existing stable base rather
than expanding and likely delaying the release yet again. Releasing
gets the finished changes
Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 2:39 PM Clebert Suconic
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > As long as we are not hitting a regression. We should be fine.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 11:50 AM Robbie Gemmell
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
I still see some sporadic failures in the AMQP tests, I raised a PR to
fix a couple of issues:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3077
I've also raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2706
and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2707 as unresolved
offshoots of
The https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/ repo is already being used for
distributing releases and has been for some time. It still appears to
be the infra / foundation documented route for publishing releases.
However https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/ is itself a Subversion
repo, is that causing
Removing that behaviour seems reasonable, a non-durable message isnt
really durable just because the broker decided to page it.
That said, it seems an odd thing to be doing deliberately without some
particular reason, i.e is removing it going to be undoing something or
reintroducing some other
I tweaked the draft report, inc removing mention of 5.15.10 from the
prev quarter and adding the NMS AMQP and Artemis Native releases to
the releases section.
Robbie
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 21:22, Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> FWIW, there is a 5.x release listed from early September. That's what was
eport skeleton for us.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 06/01/2020 11:53, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> > You mentioned on the 5.15.11 vote thread that a 5.16.0 vote would
> > happen in late November, but it was suggested to skip that particular
> > week and so folks had returned from ho
, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Since its been over 3 weeks I have just updated the website now,
> cherry-picking the commit from your PR and adding another with changes
> for my PR feedback and also the generated site output. You can
> announce the release now.
>
> Robbie
>
> O
You mentioned on the 5.15.11 vote thread that a 5.16.0 vote would
happen in late November, but it was suggested to skip that particular
week and so folks had returned from holidays around US Thanksgiving.
Its been a bit longer now, but is the intent still to release 5.16.0
very soon? I ask as the
nt how to upgrade it? and have a minimal
> version to use?
>
>
> i have currently 3.8.5 on my laptop. I can upgrade unless there is any
> pitfall on doing it.
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:20 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > Just a heads up..
> >
> &g
Just a heads up..
I made some website updates just now to add 5.15.11 to the site. I
have Jekyll 4 on my box these days and so there were some small
differences that occurred in the generated output from previous
builds, e.g around css file output. If you use an older version to
build the site
ahead and deleted them.
Robbie
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 17:10, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I've not seen files like them before either. Two different people have
> added such files some time apart though, seemingly generated by the
> same javadoc run as the 'expected' files, so presumably
> I tried to build with Jekyll but it failed on my machine.
>
> I'm resuming my work on the PR. It should be OK to merge tonight or
> tomorrow.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 16/12/2019 17:52, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> > A PR for site updates
> > https://github.com/
A PR for site updates
https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/22 was raised, but
some trivial fixups remain outstanding.
Robbie
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 12:00, Christopher Shannon
wrote:
>
> JB,
>
> Are you still working on the website update and release email for the
> release?
>
> On
uld
> like to take more time to be familiar with this part before casting a
> vote (my vote is non binding anyway as I'm not PMC member).
>
> However, you already got three binding votes so you are good to close
> the vote.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 06/11/2019 18:13,
Historically at least it was always the that case you needed 3 binding
+1 votes minimum (and more + than -), which is why PMCs needed to
have at least 3 active members or be considered for the attic, as it
is the PMC that must agree to the release happening.
I'd agree the page you linked isnt
/org/apache/qpid/jms/message/JmsBytesMessage.java#L412-L420
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > I dont believe Qpid JMS has a comparable behaviour. The getBody()
> > method (added in JMS2) copies the underlying payload to a fresh array,
> &g
I dont believe Qpid JMS has a comparable behaviour. The getBody()
method (added in JMS2) copies the underlying payload to a fresh array,
the various read style accessors operate on a different input
stream. There isnt a similar 'get content' property with side effects
behaviour that I see. You can
I suggested on the derby update PR that this thread was needed mainly
since the min version changing hadnt been discussed before that I
could recall, only that 11 should be fully supported. It wasnt clear
to me anyone had reallypreviously considered it actually changing, I
know I definitely hadnt.
gt; I'm by no means a Linux ninja, hence could you please tell what exact
> steps should I take to reproduce the issue?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Krzysztof
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:19 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, still feels a little odd to me but its
gt;
>
> I wish there was a way to test the static... I will remove the branch
> for now.. it's easy enough to place it back if needed.
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:47 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > You can serve the site locally for testing using jekyll, gene
:
>
> I actually don’t know how to test the website locally. When I open the
> index it does not render properly.
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > Given the site is readily testable locally with its build tool, and
> > how small+infre
ic
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have removed it...
> > >
> > > (Just in case, I made a copy of it on my fork, just in case, which I
> > > will remove it some day)
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:40 PM Clebert Suconic
> > > wrote:
&
pdate worked, and it
> did... everything is on master now.
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:50 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > Or, alternatively, instead of updating the contents of asf-site and
> > removing master, per the JIRA discussion we could change the site to
> &
Bruce, I saw you added a couple of release entries that looked to be
out of place, since they werent from this quarter and had already been
reported back in April as expected? I've removed them.
Robbie
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 12:26, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I wrote up a rough draft report
I wrote up a rough draft report based on some of the release details
and votes, including the info below from Krzysztof:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=130028572
Robbie
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 22:49, Krzysztof wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I cannot edit the report via
, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> We can update the contents of the asf-site branch to suit our needs,
> the only requirement from infra is that the published content is in
> the content dir. The only thing we needed them to do would be change
> the default branch.
>
> Daniel
seperate from this change, and I dont
personally see a real need for it right now.
Robbie
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 15:31, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure I see a need for creating another branch or askin
gt; I will send a separate thread with a clear title.
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 6:42 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > A necessary change would be updating the readme to describe the
> > updated build + publish process. I've raised a PR against your test
> > branch w
A necessary change would be updating the readme to describe the
updated build + publish process. I've raised a PR against your test
branch with suggested changes:
https://github.com/clebertsuconic/activemq-website/pull/1/files
Robbie
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 10:33, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
>
as only a few folks have commented on this
thread.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 18:02, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> Should we move it then ?
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:52 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > What you did is just what the exiting build script did, so that should
> >
d that branch.
>
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:57 PM +0100, "Robbie Gemmell"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -1 (non-binding)
>
> - There is content in the
tted PR which adds missing license headers.
>
> Thank you so much for feedback. I hope that next spin will be
> more successful.
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:17 PM Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 11:57 AM Robbie Gemmell
> > wr
eplace asf-site by my test branch.
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:09 PM Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
> >
> > I copied the folder from the branch.
> >
> > Check out asf-siite
> > Move it.
> >
> >
> > Checkout the test branch
> >
> >
-1 (non-binding)
- There is content in the archive permissioned in a way that you cant
access / delete it once you extract it, a little like the initial
1.8.0 API RC archive had.
- There are some files that should have headers which dont. Unfiltered
RAT output summary below.
Seperately from
.xsd
>
>
>
> Although I would consider that anyone would check stuff before committing..
>
> Any ideas?
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:03 PM Justin Bertram wrote:
> >
> > If it's simpler and documented that sounds like a win to me.
> >
> >
> > Just
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 17:41, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 16:47, Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:44 AM Robbie Gemmell
> > wrote:
> > > Thats what we do at Qpid and what I've seen other
> > > projects
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 16:47, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:44 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> > Thats what we do at Qpid and what I've seen other
> > projects do, I find it simpler overall.
>
> Tl;DR:
> I'm all +1000 on this... what we need
Messing with the remotes and resetting branches in the build script
feels a bit icky.
Would an alternative be to just move the src dir into the asf-site
branch, so all the branch swapping and updating hoop jumping (and time
spent waiting on it) is eliminated? To update the site you would then
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 03:13, Timothy Bish wrote:
>
>
> On 10/1/19 8:29 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > I have already updated the website and will send the announce tomorrow.
> >
> > Meanwhile if you guys could check the website and everything else please?
> > Just in case I missed anything?
> >
>
It is proton that sends the disposition, as you assumed. The spec
allows for dispositions to be sent after links have detached, as the
deliveries can still be 'live' in some of these cases, but when it
occurs after the link is closed like below they actually have no
effect sincee the deliveries
s) directly on
> website production svn.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 19/09/2019 20:41, Christopher Shannon wrote:
> > Good point Robbie, any committer should be able to push since it's just
> > another git project. But either way I'm happy to review a PR.
> >
&g
ssary
> push/publish).
>
> It's not a question of karma but community respect.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 19/09/2019 17:31, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> > Possibly you just want someone on the PMC to look at the update before
> > publishing, hence raising a PR...but jus
Possibly you just want someone on the PMC to look at the update before
publishing, hence raising a PR...but just in case, note that unlike
the release repo area you dont need a PMC member to push updates to
the website.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 06:59, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
d what about AmqpTypedObjects that do not
> > have "application/x-dotnet-serialized-object" nor
> > "application/x-java-serialized-object" content type? Can I safely add JMS
> > mapping message type to them?
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:57 PM R
plication/x-java-serialized-object" content type? Can I safely add JMS
> mapping message type to them?
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:57 PM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > If the NMS client were to send a dotnet serialized object payload in a
> > data section carryin
you mean but wouldn't it be a bit strange if we skipped this
> > stamp for this particular type of message and left it for other types. If
> > we change the annotation to nms specific we could keep messages consistent,
> > and as you pointed out, jms would be still able to infer
The Qpid JMS client will round trip to the server on any receive or
receiveNoWait calls where it doesnt have a message available locally
in time (unless it has been configured not to do so).
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 15:21, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>
> Even if that's the case.. It would eventually
When testing for non-reciept, I think depending on the scenario its
reasonable to use receiveNoWait, or receive(tiny timeout), or some
entirely out-of-band check such as management calls to e.g verify no
messages remain on the queue etc.
I'd agree that nothing should really ever be doing anything
but the action=download bit at
> the end of the URI was not removed. The links to the checksums and
> signatures were not updated to point to archives it seems and so those are
> also broken.
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:44 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > Its more that t
, just thinking out loud.
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:27 PM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > They arent really interoperable overall and thats fine, its just the
> > specific manner in this case which would be the issue...since the NMS
> > client seems like it would
.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for looking over
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 11:00 AM +0100, "Robbie Gemmell" <
>
I was having a look at the readme, which then lead to me having a poke
around the repo for the ObjectMessage handling based on something I
read. I think there may be an issue in the object message handling and
would propose a change if its actually doing what some of the code
suggests. I could be
th AMQPMessage. if you encode a message (say on a
> > >>>> divert), the message body disappears... future operations will NPE
> or
> > >>>> other weird issues.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm fixing that first, and then I will
Force pushing on shared branches, especially across a larger period of
time, is frowned upon because it will often cause other people issues
when they go to pull/rebase etc. If the original change was yesterday,
I'd just use a revert commit regardless whether a force push was an
option.
I read
...but I'll settle for 2.10.0, since the time machine isnt ready yet...oopsie :P
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 18:31, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> I'd like to see the/a fix for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2437 /
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2795
I'd like to see the/a fix for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2437 /
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2795 go in 2.9.0 if
possible (or at least the related proton-j update and footer key fixes
from it if not the whole thing).
Robbie
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 18:14,
Only Infra can manage things like that within the foundation GitHub
org, youd raise a JIRA[1] for them to enable the Travis integration
for given GitHub repositories.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 10:16, Michael Pearce wrote:
>
> Hi All / PMC,
>
> As
(though it seems odd they got created if they
aren't).
Robbie
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 16:18, Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> Those files seem mistaken to me. I just generated the API docs for 2.7.0
> and I don't see anything like that.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 a
ac :(
>
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:22 AM +0100, "Robbie Gemmell"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I tried this out and see the same, it appers to be because the 1.3.0
I tried this out and see the same, it appers to be because the 1.3.0
and 2.7.0 release docs javadoc dirs contain a set of files other
releases dont, with names which are illegal on Windows.
E.g if you look in
ed any ActiveMQ releases to the report manually, they are
> typically just there already. Is this because someone else manually added
> them or is Reporter scraping this information from somewhere else?
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:15 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wr
Manually entered, or 'manually' imported from JIRA (note the optional
version name prefix field, useful when projects have multiple JIRA
instances for different components where version names would overlap
each other if not prefixed). I manually enter things when releasing, I
find its simpler in
I think its as much or more to do with pricing, e.g inviting
'external' folks as guests to single channels is free on paid plans
but letting everyone join isn't.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 11:09, Michael Pearce wrote:
>
> Ive just sent you an invite.
>
> For others future reference
> Slack it works
d.
>
> ~D
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robbie Gemmell
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 11:48 AM
> To: dev@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NMS API 1.8.0
>
> [External Email]
> ---
just spotted is date needs updating.
>
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 5:17 PM +0100, "Robbie Gemmell"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The licence and notice files prese
The licence and notice files present in the src archive are in need of
updating (they look like they are from something else entirely, e.g
broker).
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:13, wrote:
>
> Thanks Tim for the feedback. Is that the only issue? Just to avoid too many
> respins.
>
>
>
>
> Get
I can't speak to the binary side of things and dont know specifically
how the NMS releases were previously done, but in case its of use here
are the general steps I take for another non-maven source-only
release:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/blob/0.28.0/docs/release.md
Steps 6 has the
Thanks to Tim for clearing these old files out.
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 17:29, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Are you able to get to this Jean-Baptiste?
>
> If not, perhaps another PMC member can run the commands instead
> (examples below)?
>
> Thanks,
> Robbie
>
> On Thu
.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 11:37, Christopher Shannon
wrote:
>
> I went ahead and pinged Infra in the slack channel to see if there's
> anything we can do to control multiple project permissions together.
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 5:32 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> >
ook for Android
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:36 PM +0100, "Robbie Gemmell"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On JIRA handling 3 main choices jump out for me, which I would do in
> this order (1 first) person
t;
> Art
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 7, 2019, at 2:27 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> >
> > GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3 are considered Category X
> > (https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x) and so files under
> > these would not typically be 'includ
On JIRA handling 3 main choices jump out for me, which I would do in
this order (1 first) personally:
1) Create an individual JIRA project per plugin (e.g as Maven do:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseProjects.jspa?selectedCategory=10510=all)
2) Create a new 'artemis plugins' style
I think there is an element of difficulty in documenting precise
criteria for plugins, as to a certain extent what the plugin is (and
to smaller degree perhaps even what its implementation entails) could
influence how necessary or appropriate people think it is to be part
of this project, and
Here is the RAT output for wildfly-commons 1.5.1.Final (version used
in Artemis), from adding the RAT plugin and running "mvn
apache-rat:check" on the module:
https://paste.apache.org/BzlS
16 files were flagged unknown, 15 of which just have no header (5 look
like just empty build marker files),
GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3 are considered Category X
(https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x) and so files under
these would not typically be 'included' in an Apache project, which is
to say we could not distribute them in a source release or any related
binary convenience artifacts.
That
A specific source file being under a different licence does not
necessarily mean the whole project has to be treated as such. It may
mean parts of it do. It can also depend on what parts of the project
are used whether there is any impact to a particular use case.
I would certainly agree the file
Are you able to get to this Jean-Baptiste?
If not, perhaps another PMC member can run the commands instead
(examples below)?
Thanks,
Robbie
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 18:12, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Great, thanks Jean-Baptiste.
>
> Robbie
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 18:06, Je
broker
release.
Also worth considering that not everything need be part of the
project. Not requiring that can even a good reason to have certain
plugin points in the first place.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:06 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
> > A vote would be requir
301 - 400 of 678 matches
Mail list logo
