Also, obviously I meant 5.17, 5.18, etc as this is not Artemis :) On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:10 PM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In terms of maintenance if we get out 2.18, 2.19, etc then 2.17 can just > get important fixes or be made EOL and we can move on. Long lived branches > and support are not necessary if we keep up with more frequent releases. > > 2.17.0 is at a logical cut off point where it's at now and I'm definitely > not in favor of adding something brand new (Jakarta changes) last minute > and I doubt others are either. > > So again..it's time to move on. As everyone else already seems to be in > agreement with (JB, Tim, Robbie) let's just do the release this week with > the current changes and then move on to 2.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta > updates, etc. > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey All- >> >> I get the idea that getting a JDK 11-based released is a good thing, but >> I also think we should consider the jakarta alignment as part of what >> active branches are supported. This is the path other projects have taken >> and helps users align things when they are assembling pieces for their >> environment >> >> If we go with the proposed plan in this thread-- we add JDK 11, but do >> not move the ball forward on anything jakarta related — we add another >> active branch to maintain. As log4j showed us, having a bunch of active >> branches out there is a lot of work when it is time to crank out security >> fixes. Additionally, keeping up with Jetty and other dependencies is going >> to become more difficult if we do not start taking steps to align JDK + >> jakarta in supported branches. >> >> I also feel that the current status of the JMS 2.0 phased implementation >> is closer to done than the amount of work to revert AMQ-7309. PR-729 has >> 200+ test cases and has addressed all feedback as of this morning. >> >> JMS 2.0 tested and validated: >> - All destinations (queue, topic, temp-topic, temp-queue) and all message >> types (bytes, map, object, stream, and text) >> - All message property types (bytes, string, int, float, double, short, >> etc.) including min+max data ranges >> - Foreign message support >> - Range checking on priority and deliveryMode >> - Topic Durable Subscriber (JMS v1.x alignment) >> >> Thank you, >> Matt Pavlovich >> >> > On Feb 22, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> > >> > I agree. >> > >> > @Matt @Robbie @Tim is it ok for you to have 5.17.0 with Spring5, >> > log4j2, JDK11 and include JMS2 in 5.18.0 that can happen quickly ? >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:09 PM Christopher Shannon >> > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0. The reality is >> there is no consensus to keep it in 5.17.0. There are multiple people who >> do not want to include it in 5.17.0 so it's time to move on without. We >> also need to revert the commits from >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7309 as there is no reason to >> include that now. >> >> >> >> So I say go ahead with the release and vote (after wrapping things up >> including reverting that AMQ-7309 JMS 2 stuff). >> >> >> >> I'm pretty tired of the back and forth and fighting over version >> numbers to be honest and just want to move on. It's not productive to keep >> arguing anymore over a version...5.18.0 can literally go out whenever we >> want. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:50 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi guys, >> >>> >> >>> Quick update about 5.17.0 release: >> >>> >> >>> - I fixed/squash log4j2 update PR >> >>> (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662). I think it's OK (I'm >> >>> waiting for the end of Jenkins). >> >>> - I'm creating Apache POM 25 update PR >> >>> - I'm creating Spring 5.3.16 update PR >> >>> >> >>> So, ActiveMQ 5.17.0 is almost ready from this standpoint. >> >>> >> >>> As I would like to start the vote asap, It would be great to act about >> >>> JMS2. Do you want me to start with different options ? >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> JB >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:55 AM 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 >> >>
