ok, lets go
> On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Shannon
> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
