Good grief. I'll get that one removed.
I just created https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis-console-plugin.git.
Please use that one instead.
Thanks for the heads up!
Justin
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:23 AM Timothy Bish wrote:
> On 3/19/24 11:01, Justin Bertram wrote:
> > Done -
>
On 3/19/24 11:01, Justin Bertram wrote:
Done - https://github.com/apache/activemq-activemq-artemis-console-plugin
Looks like you included 'activemq' in the name when creating the repo so
now you have two activemq's in the new repo name, likely should get that
fixed.
Justin
On Tue, Mar
Done - https://github.com/apache/activemq-activemq-artemis-console-plugin
Justin
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:55 AM Andy Taylor wrote:
> Correct
>
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, 14:29 Justin Bertram, wrote:
>
> > Just to confirm...The repo name should be
> > "activemq-artemis-console-plugin", right?
>
Correct
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, 14:29 Justin Bertram, wrote:
> Just to confirm...The repo name should be
> "activemq-artemis-console-plugin", right?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:22 AM Andy Taylor
> wrote:
>
> > turns out I don't have permissions to create a repo, could someone from
Just to confirm...The repo name should be
"activemq-artemis-console-plugin", right?
Justin
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:22 AM Andy Taylor wrote:
> turns out I don't have permissions to create a repo, could someone from the
> PMC do this for me?
>
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 09:27, Andy Taylor
turns out I don't have permissions to create a repo, could someone from the
PMC do this for me?
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 09:27, Andy Taylor wrote:
> I will go ahead and request the new repo today
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 18:39, Timothy Bish wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/24 13:33, Andy Taylor wrote:
>> >
I will go ahead and request the new repo today
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 18:39, Timothy Bish wrote:
> On 3/18/24 13:33, Andy Taylor wrote:
> > so I am open to names, how about artemis-console-plugin v1.0.0
>
> +1
>
>
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 on
On 3/18/24 13:33, Andy Taylor wrote:
so I am open to names, how about artemis-console-plugin v1.0.0
+1
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
+1 on activemq-artemis-console-plugin
As Robbie said, you will need different versions for it. I feel like
it would be easier to
Ok, lets wait a while for any further comments then go with that
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:39, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> sounds good to me also.
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 1:36 PM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > Seems good to me
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:35, Andy Taylor
> wrote:
> > >
sounds good to me also.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 1:36 PM Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Seems good to me
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:35, Andy Taylor wrote:
> >
> > so I am open to names, how about artemis-console-plugin v1.0.0
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic
> > wrote:
> >
>
Seems good to me
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:35, Andy Taylor wrote:
>
> so I am open to names, how about artemis-console-plugin v1.0.0
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on activemq-artemis-console-plugin
> >
> >
> > As Robbie said, you will need different
so I am open to names, how about artemis-console-plugin v1.0.0
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> +1 on activemq-artemis-console-plugin
>
>
> As Robbie said, you will need different versions for it. I feel like
> it would be easier to use a different name... but I don't mind
+1 on activemq-artemis-console-plugin
As Robbie said, you will need different versions for it. I feel like
it would be easier to use a different name... but I don't mind what
you have to do. Whatever makes it easier to be implemented.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 1:10 PM Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
>
On the module name, if it stays the same then consideration would also
need to be given to the version. It would need to be higher than
before to keep using the same name, but using a broker version isnt
necessarily that obvious if we dont expect to release it on the same
schedule as the broker.
+1 for avtivemq-artemis-console-plugin but I think we should keep the
artifact name as it is now for consistency, i.e. artemis-plugin
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 16:29, Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> We should discuss the name then someone can create it via
> https://selfserve.apache.org
>
> It would be
We should discuss the name then someone can create it via
https://selfserve.apache.org
It would be something of the form activemq-artemis- for
consistency. Regarding , what is actually going in it, a console
'plugin' ?
So perhaps activemq-artemis-console-plugin ?
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 07:46,
Lets go with a separate repo then, @clebert or anyone, can you create me a
new repo or talk me thru how to do it. What shall we call this new
component/repo, considering we will still have an artemis-console module in
the artemis repo?
Clebert, I will add this new fields in your PR to the new
I think we have a consensus on a separate repo.
@Andy: me an Anton, we wre adding a field for internal queues in the admin
console. If you could make sure we keep that on the new one please ? Or
let us know how to adjust it?
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4856
On Thu, Mar
+1 for a separate repo
Justin
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:56 AM Andy Taylor wrote:
> Clebert, I think it will be weeks rather than days so I would just release
> when you are ready.
>
> Robbie, I think for now a separate repo is my preferred solution, the
> console can actually be run outside
+1 for the separate repo approach
On 3/14/24 09:10, Domenico Francesco Bruscino wrote:
+1 separate repo
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 14:07, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
+1 separate repo
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:12 AM Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
That it can actually be run standalone would be another
+1 for a separate repo
It seems like the console would be a good candidate to separate out based
on the points already made by others
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 9:10 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 separate repo
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 14:07, Clebert Suconic
+1 separate repo
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 14:07, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> +1 separate repo
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:12 AM Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
> >
> > That it can actually be run standalone would be another reason I'd
> > also choose to go with a separate repo.
> >
> > Lets allow other
+1 separate repo
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:12 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> That it can actually be run standalone would be another reason I'd
> also choose to go with a separate repo.
>
> Lets allow other folks time to chip in their opinions, if a separate
> repo appears to be the consensus we
That it can actually be run standalone would be another reason I'd
also choose to go with a separate repo.
Lets allow other folks time to chip in their opinions, if a separate
repo appears to be the consensus we can then look to create one.
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 08:51, Andy Taylor wrote:
>
>
Clebert, I think it will be weeks rather than days so I would just release
when you are ready.
Robbie, I think for now a separate repo is my preferred solution, the
console can actually be run outside of embedded artemis so development is
easy. Can someone create a new repo?
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024
If it was a matter of 1 day to include it I would prefer to wait for it.
Other than that then I’m releasing on Monday.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:40 PM Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> I'd say the answer to 'Wait for to do a release?' is usually no
> unless its about a blocking bug/regression or
I'd say the answer to 'Wait for to do a release?' is usually no
unless its about a blocking bug/regression or there's really nothing
else important ready to go. This definitely isnt that and also isnt
ready yet while other stuff is, so seems a clear no to me.
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 16:58,
Having spent a while making the build much faster than it historically
was, if it was to go in the artemis repo directly I'd at least want a
way to disable building the console to allow keeping things more like
their current state, for all those times doing stuff not actually
involving the console
Should I wait for the 2.33 release ?
See my other thread about the heads up.
Or you think this may take a lot longer ?
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:27 AM Andy Taylor wrote:
> The current Artemis console is based on HawtIO 1 which itself is written
> using Bootstrap. Bootstrap is old and no
The current Artemis console is based on HawtIO 1 which itself is written
using Bootstrap. Bootstrap is old and no longer maintained so HawtIO (v3/4)
has moved to use React and Patternfly and is also written in Typescript.
I have been working in the background over the last several months to
30 matches
Mail list logo
