Hey Chris-

I believe the JMS 2.0 impl is in good shape (fighting one test that 
works-locally-fails-on-Apache-CI fun!). Given the desire to get 5.17.0 out 
soon, I can get behind allowing more time for others to review and roll with it 
in 5.18.0.

How about keeping AMQ-7309 in 5.17.0 and go forward with your suggestion of 
moving on to 5.18.0 with JMS 2.0, Jakarta updates, etc? AMQ-7309 is well 
reviewed and been merged for 4 months. 

Thanks,
Matt

> On Feb 22, 2022, at 2:10 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
>> 
>> 

Reply via email to