> > +1 on moving forward without JMS 2.0 until 5.18.0.
+1. Just one question, since 5.17.0 is reported as a release with major updates [1], I haven't found so far [2] if a migration guide will need to be created for this release? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=199530315 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AMQ/versions/12346476 El mar, 22 feb 2022 a las 14:26, Christopher Shannon (< christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com>) escribió: > 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 > >> > >> > -- Atentamente: César Hernández.
