Matt, the reason to roll back is for what Robbie just said. I know the discussion originally was that the first step of this would be to include the jar with no impl and just UOE. But I've been convinced after all the discussion the past couple weeks on this that there's no real point to doing so now because A) you already get the same behavior with including the jar yourself and B) there will be real client impl changes coming shortly with 5.18.0 it just makes a lot more sense to me to wait and include everything in 5.18.0.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > It really doesnt make sense to include changing the API in 5.17.0 > without any impl, it would be very odd to retain to me, and also quite > misleading. It may also unnecessarily inconvenience people that have > previously adapted their builds to other bits including a > likely-different 2.0 API artifact if they needed it and excluding the > 1.1 api, into updating their excludes despite no impl change. It just > makes sense to unwind it. > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:30, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > >> > > >> > > >