Whats solution for monday? Revert the change? Or someone got an alternative in pipeline?
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> Date: 06/09/2018 14:27 (GMT+00:00) To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3 i don’t think a regression like this qualifies as -1. We can just follow up with 2.6.4. From what I understood you will need to enable force and then update the XML. You can only do that on purpose and we can document the known issue. We can have 2.6.4 as early as next Monday. This release had already passed anyways. As I said the only reason I didn’t send the result yesterday night was for a personal appointment I had. On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 7:53 AM michael.andre.pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: > Not really. This is a regression and causes message loss as queue is > destroyed when it shouldn't be > > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> Date: 06/09/2018 12:43 (GMT+00:00) To: > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3 > It is not a reason to abort the release. We can have a 2.6.4. > > > The vote had already passed as yesterday night. I didn’t send the result > yesterday as I had a personal errand. > > > You ok to keep the release if we do a 2.6.4 shortly ? > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:49 AM michael.andre.pearce > <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Im going to have to -1 this. > > It seems that with delete queue force set, if i change routing type by > > mistake the queue is destroyed. The intent of this flag was to remove a > > queue only. Not be a flag around redeploy on change. As such breaks some > > existing use. > > Unfortunately there was a last minute change that got merged. > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > -------- Original message --------From: Francesco Nigro < > > nigro....@gmail.com> Date: 05/09/2018 17:04 (GMT+00:00) To: > > dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis > 2.6.3 > > +1 > > > > Il mer 5 set 2018, 18:03 Martyn Taylor <mtay...@redhat.com> ha scritto: > > > > > +1. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Christopher Shannon < > > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:11 AM Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 08/30/2018 10:46 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > > > > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.6.3 release. > > > > > > > > > > > > This release has many bug fixes and a few performance > improvements, > > > > > > and it contains exactly 100 commits, covering 54 JIRAs. Thanks a > > lot > > > > > > to all who contributed. > > > > > > > > > > > > A report of commits can be found here: > > > > > > http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/commit-report-2.6.3.html > > > > > > > > > > > > The release notes can be found here: > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa? > > > > projectId=12315920&version=12343472 > > > > > > > > > > > > Source and binary distributions can be found here: > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.6.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Maven repository is here: > > > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > > > > orgapacheactivemq-1171 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you want to give it a try with the maven repo on > examples: > > > > > > > > > > > http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/latest/hacking- > > > > guide/validating-releases.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The source tag: > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-artemis. > > > > git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.6.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will update the website after the vote has passed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache Artemis 2.6.3 > > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's my +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > * Validated signatures and checksums > > > > > * Check for license and notice files > > > > > * Ran mvn apache-rat:check to verify source license headers > > > > > * Ran broker from binary archive and checked admin console and ran > > some > > > > > examples against it > > > > > * Built from source and ran sanity tests and the full set of AMQP > > > > > integration tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Tim Bish > > > > > twitter: @tabish121 > > > > > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > -- Clebert Suconic
