[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQCPP-27?page=comments#action_37753
]
Nathan Mittler commented on AMQCPP-27:
--
I haven't heard back - was this resolved by my latest changes?
Issues reported by Valgrind when running unit
Upgrade to xbean 2.8 to fix invalid generated schemas
-
Key: AMQ-1107
URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1107
Project: ActiveMQ
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter:
I have a very simple producer (from example). Now I added one line to create
temporary queue, and got exception:
CMS Exception occured.
caught unknown exception
FILE: activemq/connector/stomp/StompConnector.cpp, LINE: 422
FILE: activemq/core/ActiveMQSession.cpp, LINE: 318
Below is
Stomp Doesn't currently support temporary queue's so you get that
exception from amq cpp.
-Original Message-
From: amq user [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:17 AM
To: activemq-dev
Subject: active-cpp temporary queue problem
I have a very simple producer
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQCPP-31?page=comments#action_37759
]
Albert Strasheim commented on AMQCPP-31:
Autoconf's HAVE_ defines will definately give more fine-grained control over
the platform-specific code. I
I m using activemq 4.1 and wonder y sometimes the message that pass inside
the dedicated queue can't be read out by my other application? Most of the
times the application can read the message from the queue but just sometimes
the message won't be read out. Is there any configuration needed for
MessageAggregateErrorHandler should include xml header (with encoding defined)
--
Key: SM-792
URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-792
Project: ServiceMix
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-791?page=all ]
Guillaume Nodet resolved SM-791.
Fix Version/s: 3.1
Resolution: Fixed
Assignee: Guillaume Nodet
Author: gnodet
Date: Fri Dec 22 01:56:29 2006
New Revision: 489594
URL:
StandardProviderProcessor does not set exchange status to done for
InOnly/RobustInOnly exchanges
Key: SM-793
URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-793
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-779?page=all ]
Guillaume Nodet resolved SM-779.
Fix Version/s: 3.1
Resolution: Fixed
Assignee: Guillaume Nodet
Author: gnodet
Date: Thu Dec 21 23:59:19 2006
New Revision: 489573
URL:
Well... If we acutaly left tags alone and did not change them or retag then the
tag would be sufficent. But to get an exact codeline for a specific release you
need the tag + rev.
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:55:08
All of these impact the release, even if the code is not altered... Which is
why it is important to keep release artifacts in sync with release codebases.
And if you want to be sure to be able to reproduce a release you need to have
the rev Otherwise you might pick up new changes made and
The problem is that comments at the top of the pom are lost
when releasing.
The workaround is to move the comments (ASF header)
down into the project tag.
I have just done that for xbean, and it works nicely:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/xbean/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup
and the tagged
I'm OK with the change but would like to understand the proposal a little bit
better.
Not knowing Maven enough I do have a few questions.
What would be the equivalent to branches?
How would we manage the cut for stabilizing and releasing?
How would we manage *TCK*?
Cheers!
Hernan
Matt
I meant things like DayTrader, XBean, DevTools, or broken out modules
like Tx mgr which we've been talking about for some time. I guess it
was a little ambiguous...basically everything except the big G
On Dec 22, 2006, at 2:51 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On 12/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL
I agree...I think you have an SVN base number that you start
from...you do the work in branches, make small tweaks, etc.
(remember, we're trusting the the release manager and our friends :)
When you release Maven makes the move of the released branch to
tags. So the base SVN number is
On Dec 22, 2006, at 6:27 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
I'm OK with the change but would like to understand the proposal a
little bit better.
Not knowing Maven enough I do have a few questions.
What would be the equivalent to branches? How would we manage the
cut for stabilizing and releasing?
On Dec 22, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Dec 22, 2006, at 6:27 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
I'm OK with the change but would like to understand the proposal a
little bit better.
Not knowing Maven enough I do have a few questions.
What would be the equivalent to branches? How would
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQCPP-27?page=comments#action_37756
]
Albert Strasheim commented on AMQCPP-27:
I'll check this out over the weekend and report back.
Issues reported by Valgrind when running unit tests
I don't get it... why do we need an adopt a spec program? I'm not
really sure what it is... but it doesn't really sound good. :-\
--jason
On Dec 21, 2006, at 2:57 PM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:50 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Dec 22, 2006, at 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I thought from looking at the maven dev list that maven now or in a
couple days is going to support staging releases. I'm considerably
less than thrilled by the idea of changing what we vote on,
especially just when it looks like hope is on
Binaries are up!
http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository/org/apache/
openejb/
-David
Just some thoughts on the QA stuff.
From what I understand, the problem you are focusing on
is just a naming problem: you want the GA release to be
named 2.0. That's fine. But it only concerns the final
downloadables archives, right ? These are usually
downloaded from the Apache mirroring
The 1.2-beta jars have been copied to the Apache mirror system. Once
they are distributed mirrors, we'll need to update the website.
Anyone know how to do this?
The jars will be merged into the main repo as soon as Jason Van Zyl
gets on online (he has the magic merge tool :))
-dain
On
Consider giving the unix #define a more unique name
---
Key: AMQCPP-31
URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQCPP-31
Project: ActiveMQ C++ Client
Issue Type: Wish
Affects
On Dec 22, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
From what I understand, the problem you are focusing on
is just a naming problem: you want the GA release to be
named 2.0. That's fine. But it only concerns the final
downloadables archives, right ?
Nope, since mvn releases each component's
Hi y'all,
The OpenEJB vote has concluded so I'm going to let 2.0-M1 out the
door. Just a heads up.
Mr. Vanzyl would you mind releasing the 2.0-M1 artifacts from
people.apache.org/hogstrom/public_html/stage to the maven repo ?
Since this is the first time we've done this I hope all goes
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQCPP-31?page=all ]
Timothy Bish reassigned AMQCPP-31:
--
Assignee: Timothy Bish (was: Nathan Mittler)
Consider giving the unix #define a more unique name
---
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQCPP-31?page=all ]
Timothy Bish resolved AMQCPP-31.
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed in Trunk
Consider giving the unix #define a more unique name
---
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQCPP-31?page=all ]
Nathan Mittler updated AMQCPP-31:
-
Fix Version/s: 1.1
Consider giving the unix #define a more unique name
---
Key:
Folks,
Congrats to everyone who worked on these releases. We have
simultaneously released two different versions of Apache Geronimo but
we also had some help form the folks in Incubator in getting out
releases of Yoko, OpenJPA and OpenEJB as well.
You guys are awesome ... enjoy your
On Dec 22, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I don't get it... why do we need an adopt a spec program? I'm not
really sure what it is... but it doesn't really sound good. :-\
--jason
It was a suggestion on how to parcel them out...kind of like adopt a
highway program :)
Matt
Hi David, I noticed that a number of the subtasks for the OPENEJB-216 JIRA for annotations
have already been closed. Also, I see the @interface code in the descriptions of these
closed subtasks. What I don't see though is the actual code anywhere (I'm looking in
/openejb/trunk/openejb2). Am I
Look in /openejb/trunk/openejb3
On Dec 22, 2006, at 11:26 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi David, I noticed that a number of the subtasks for the
OPENEJB-216 JIRA for annotations have already been closed. Also, I
see the @interface code in the descriptions of these closed
subtasks. What I
On Dec 22, 2006, at 7:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Dec 22, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
From what I understand, the problem you are focusing on
is just a naming problem: you want the GA release to be
named 2.0. That's fine. But it only concerns the final
downloadables archives,
This is NOT how mvn works folks... I've been trying to explain that to you for
the past weeks. You just don get it :-/
Good luck
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:15:39
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]
36 matches
Mail list logo
