+1, sounds good to me JB. I like the idea in general of just having smaller, more frequent feature releases if there is stuff worth releasing. No reason to really wait if something is completed and is ready to go. If JMS 2.0 client changes are ready in a month it can go out then or it can go out in 3 months, etc. If there's nothing noteworthy then we can wait a year for a release, it doesn't really matter too much.
Many projects have gone to do a quicker model of updates and release updates quite (monthly, quarterly, etc). On the extreme side a project like Jenkins does weekly releases and monthly LTS. Not saying we have to do that of course but just pointing out that the frequency is really up to us. Also in general all of the JMS 2.0 proposed changes have gone through a lot more back and forth and discussion over what to do with it compared to other updates so I don't want to rush it in a release and would rather just take time and make sure everyone agrees on the changes before putting it out there. On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:16 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > >
