It has been a month since the previous reviews, and several commits were made 5 days ago. Its already weeks after the release was said multiple times to be going out. This thread suggests doing the release after a couple more days and yet none of this stuff is landed. Glancing at it seems entirely reasonable. If its not ready for review even of its 'first phase', I think it is perplexing to even contemplate including it at this stage.
The JIRAs that are already being targeted to post-5.17.0, and the PR apparently not even ready for quick glances despite being open for months, only serves to reinforce my opinion that 5.17.0 should proceed without it so it can then be worked on further. It can then easily go out in another release when more of it is actually ready, however soon that is. There is no need to lump everything into the same minor release and spend 2-3 years on each as keeps happening, and equally that means theres also no need to release things before they are ready. Other version numbers are available. (The state of the disableMessageID handling is probably an aspect of lesser importance on the PR for what its worth. That setting is only a 'hint' after all, which providers dont actually need to respect at all.) On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 14:42, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Re: AMQ-7309 and PR-729 > > Robbie’s latest review caught an in-flight WIP. I had not yet requested > re-review. I am in the process verifying the feasibility of supporting > disableMessageID support within the wider range of unit tests. I will request > re-reviews once the additional tests and clean-ups are pushed through. > > There have been a number of good suggestions in the first pass, and almost > all of those have already been implemented. I don’t see any reason this won’t > be the case for the next pass. > > Thanks, > Matt Pavlovich > > > On Feb 21, 2022, at 6:35 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Finally doing a 5.17.0 release sounds good. > > > > That said, I dont personally think > > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/729 is ready for inclusion in > > a release though, even with an '-rc1' adorned version number > > previously suggested but apparently no longer planned, since even as a > > 'first phase' it is surprisingly incomplete, adding some of the JMS 2 > > 'simplified API' but not even doing much of the basic JMS 1.1 level > > functionality within it, like setting a MessageListener on a > > JMSConsumer, or creating a durable subscriber (non-shared), or > > JMSContext's acknowledge() method for doing client-ack (presumably the > > message method works though), etc. > > > > It also just seems very odd to even think about just *starting* to > > including stuff like that on main within a couple days of intending to > > do a release thats nearing being *years* in the making, and getting > > describe to users as '2-3 weeks' for way over a year now, including > > multiple times in the last few months. > > > > For me, the most obvious idea at this point would actually be for > > 5.17.x to be branched and proceed without this. Theres a load of stuff > > in it already that is long overdue like the JDK11 build etc. I would > > go so far as to say the prior API jar change from early November > > (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/682) should also be > > effectively reverted, it makes no sense to me on its own. Then all of > > this stuff then worked on towards a 5.18.x release that actually > > implements and tests things to a reasonable level thats less likely to > > see even trivial use cases fail to work. > > > > Robbie > > > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 04:55, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing almost all unit > >> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the > >> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be good to be > >> merged. I will do that today. > >> > >> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using jetty modules > >> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45. > >> > >> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones from Matt. @Matt > >> can you please ping me on slack to check together the status of the > >> PRs ? > >> > >> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote this Thursday if > >> there are no objections. > >> > >> Regards > >> JB >
