That's a good point, and you are right: we can "accelerate" on releases and back at a regular pace.
So, indeed, we can focus on 5.17.x with JDK11, Spring5, log4j2 and several other updates and do 5.18.0 quickly with JMS2 on the client side. It's +1 for me if everyone is happy with that plan :) Regards JB On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 4:43 PM Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > At this point I think we should just move all JMS 2.0 items to 5.18.0 and > split it up. It's just a version number and 5.17.0 is long overdue. There's > probably still going to be more back and forth on JMS 2.0 even after the > next review. 5.18.0 can go out whenever it's ready, it doesn't have to wait > years. > > A roadmap could be something like: > > -5.17.0 would include requiring JDK 11, log4j2 upgrade, spring 5.3, etc. > -5.18.0 could include JMS 2.0 client implementation (except things not > possible like shared subs) plus the Jakarta messaging API updates (can > support Jakarta messaging and JMS 2.0 as two different modules like Artemis > did). > -5.19.0 could work on targeting more broker side JMS 2.0 support (using > virtual destinations for shared subs, etc). > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > If Matt is comfortable with the JMS2 change, maybe it is worth > > considering quickly ? > > > > My main point is that it has been discussed on the mailing list and it > > seems we had a consensus to include the first JMS2 round in 5.17.0. We > > can always change the plan, but again, I would at least include a > > quick documentation how to use JMS2 with ActiveMQ client. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:42 PM 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 > > > > >
