Le 09/03/2011 12:40, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
Yes I noticed, I meant an example with it turned on hehe :)
Ok :) There are some examples in these issues from the Commons CLI project:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLI-137
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLI-156
Emmanuel Bourg
Hi,
I see that the queues created using session.createQueue are not durable in
the trunk version that I am using as opposed to it creates durable queues in
0.6 release. I think this particular JMS call should create durable queues.
Furthermore the trunk version that I use creates durable queues
Hi Justin/All,
I'm wondering what the approach for identifying the content of the 0-10
release from JIRA is ?
I've just been trying to figure out what is actually in 0-10 from JIRA and
its not easy since we have 0-10 items complete adn I think raised during the
release process and a load of open
We had a similar discussion when 0.8 went out and the feeling was that
issues completed during the development stream should be left marked as such
because you cant have 2 fix-for versions when resolving a JIRA, and so only
issues that were fixed after branching and updating the version would get
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 03/10/2011 01:50 PM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
Hi Justin/All,
I'm wondering what the approach for identifying the content of the 0-10
release from JIRA is ?
I've just been trying to figure out what is actually in 0-10 from JIRA and
its not easy since
On 03/08/2011 09:22 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
Hi. I've updated the release page[1] with a link to our beta
distribution, taken at revision 107887 from the 0.10 branch:
http://people.apache.org/~gsim/qpid-0.10-beta/
This one also includes the qmf and tools source tarballs, which were
missing from
On 03/08/2011 09:22 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
Hi. I've updated the release page[1] with a link to our beta
distribution, taken at revision 107887 from the 0.10 branch:
http://people.apache.org/~gsim/qpid-0.10-beta/
I'd like to suggest pruning the list of artefacts to those that will be
tested
Le 10/03/2011 15:47, Justin Ross a écrit :
I spoke to Andrew Stitcher about the versions in jira. We think it would
be simpler overall if jira contained only even-numbered (released)
versions. Right now the extra fidelity of having odd- and even-numbered
versions mostly causes confusion and
I guess that makes sense yes, and should be easily achieved (change all the
0.10 JIRAs to 0.9 fix for, remove 0.10 version, rename 0.9 to 0.10, rename
0.11 to 0.12).
Does everyone agree that is the way to go?
Robbie
On 10 March 2011 14:47, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Justin Ross wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 03/10/2011 01:50 PM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
Hi Justin/All,
I'm wondering what the approach for identifying the content of the 0-10
release from JIRA is ?
I've just been trying to figure out what is actually
Yeah, if folks want to press ahead, I'm for it.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I guess that makes sense yes, and should be easily achieved (change all the
0.10 JIRAs to 0.9 fix for, remove 0.10 version, rename 0.9 to 0.10, rename
0.11 to 0.12).
Does everyone agree that is the way
Danushka,
I don't think session.createQueue should create durable queues.
At least there is no requirement like that specified in the JMS spec.
If the 0.6 release creates durable queues then I think it should be a bug,
but I haven't really noticed anything like that before.
For the upcoming 0.10
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 10/03/2011 15:47, Justin Ross a écrit :
I spoke to Andrew Stitcher about the versions in jira. We think it would
be simpler overall if jira contained only even-numbered (released)
versions. Right now the extra fidelity of having odd- and
No time like the present; just prior to release is probably the easiest time
to do this :)
On 10 March 2011 15:10, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com wrote:
snip
(By the way, I meant the above to be a question about how we do this in the
future, not something needs to change pronto.)
snip
Creating (non-temporary) durable queues has always been the default afaik,
and given that the default delivery mode for the messages themselves is
persistent that probably makes some amount of sense. Such a change wont have
been caught by the tests since the profiles all still default to the old
On 03/10/2011 03:14 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
Yeah, if folks want to press ahead, I'm for it.
Me too.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Robbie Gemmell
robbie.gemm...@gmail.comwrote:
Creating (non-temporary) durable queues has always been the default afaik,
If Qpid created durable queues by default then I think that is something we
need to explicitly document, since it's different from what the
Add option to disable defaults for queue threshold alerts
-
Key: QPID-3136
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3136
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Improvement
I think we'd need to have a vote thread to redo the versioning approac -
which is effectively what this implies if I'v eunderstood correctly ?
I don't like the scheme we've got but iirc it was discussed at length and
voted in.
However, the harder task to do which involves (at least this is how
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2643?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gordon Sim updated QPID-2643:
-
Fix Version/s: (was: 0.9)
Future
trunk build failed under VS10 x64.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2955?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gordon Sim updated QPID-2955:
-
Fix Version/s: (was: 0.9)
0.10
Use QPID_TSS consistently
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1860?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gordon Sim resolved QPID-1860.
--
Resolution: Won't Fix
Python verify file cannot contain comments
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1198?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gordon Sim closed QPID-1198.
Resolution: Incomplete
Partially addressed by series of patches. Raise new Jiras for anything still an
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2955?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gordon Sim updated QPID-2955:
-
Fix Version/s: (was: 0.10)
Future
Use QPID_TSS consistently
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3009?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ted Ross resolved QPID-3009.
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: (was: 0.9)
0.10
Perl binding to Qpid
On 03/10/2011 04:56 PM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
I think we'd need to have a vote thread to redo the versioning approac -
which is effectively what this implies if I'v eunderstood correctly ?
I don't like the scheme we've got but iirc it was discussed at length and
voted in.
However, the harder
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ken Giusti updated QPID-2396:
-
Fix Version/s: (was: 0.9)
Future
Add assignment operator methods for objects with
old examples are installed incorrectly
--
Key: QPID-3137
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3137
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 0.9
Reporter: Gordon Sim
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2057?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
michael j. goulish updated QPID-2057:
-
Fix Version/s: 0.11
qpidd --require-encryption forces SASL security layer to be used
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2993?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
michael j. goulish updated QPID-2993:
-
Fix Version/s: 0.11
Federated source-local links crash remotely federated cluster member
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13005282#comment-13005282
]
Chuck Rolke commented on QPID-3135:
---
Ignore the patch of 10/Mar/11 04:30 - it is
This fix prevents bld-winsdk.ps1 from crashing when it tries to delete
files that not longer exist.
I've tested it against trunk and against the current 0.10 branch.
On approval I will merge it into the 0.10 branch.
Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3135
Commit:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13005320#comment-13005320
]
Justin Ross commented on QPID-3135:
---
Approved for 0.10.
cpp/bld-winsdk.ps1 tries to
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Marnie McCormack wrote:
I think we'd need to have a vote thread to redo the versioning approac -
which is effectively what this implies if I'v eunderstood correctly ?
I don't think they're really coupled. The model of using only release
versions (even-numbered versions)
Forwarding, since Gmail decided I didnt really want to reply to the list :)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Robbie Gemmell
Date: 10 March 2011 21:02
On 10 March 2011 16:00, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Robbie Gemmell
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Chuck Rolke resolved QPID-3135.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 0.10
cpp/bld-winsdk.ps1 tries to install non-existant files
I can't see what the release numbers mean if they don't line up with the
JIRAs - surely it'd be completely impossible to have a release (or
dev) version that didn't appear in JIRA ?
How would that work ?
Thanks,
Marnie
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com wrote:
On
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell robbie.gemm...@gmail.comwrote:
Forwarding, since Gmail decided I didnt really want to reply to the list :)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Robbie Gemmell
Date: 10 March 2011 21:02
On 10 March 2011 16:00, Rajith Attapattu
Andrew,
I am quite happy for you to setup a CI build for Qpid on the ASF Hudson
service.
I think the default profile, java.0.10 and cpp profiles will be an
excellent start and would probably be good enough.
Regards,
Rajith
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Andrew Kennedy
Perf improvement for topic exchange
---
Key: QPID-3138
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3138
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Bug
Components: C++ Broker
Affects Versions: 0.9
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3138?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Carl Trieloff resolved QPID-3138.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Assignee: Carl Trieloff
Committed revision 1080411.
Perf improvement
Is there interest in having this committed to 0-10, it is low risk,
large perf gain for topic exchange.
On 03/10/2011 05:53 PM, Carl Trieloff (JIRA) wrote:
Perf improvement for topic exchange
---
Key: QPID-3138
URL:
On 10 March 2011 22:15, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Robbie Gemmell
robbie.gemm...@gmail.comwrote:
Forwarding, since Gmail decided I didnt really want to reply to the list
:)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Robbie Gemmell
I think its long overdue that we have some testing being run on the Apache
CI servers, fire away.
I dont know who set up the instance on Nemo.
Robbie
On 9 March 2011 01:44, Andrew Kennedy andrewinternatio...@gmail.com wrote:
Guys,
I appreciate we are in a rush to get 0.10 ready to ship,
I am not suggesting that it creating queues duing Consumer construction is
what the API says it should do, as it is pretty clear that it only covers
creation creation of temporary queues, and (in our implementation of topic
subscriptions) creation and removal of the backing queues used for
45 matches
Mail list logo
