Hi guys, FYI, I merged log4j2 support on main for 5.17.0.
For security reasons and being up to date with Jetty, I would like to include https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/784 Thoughts ? Regarding the release, I think we are good. If there are no objections, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote tonight (my time). Regards JB On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:51 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > FWIW it seems like it should be a simple enough revert once the branch > is made. Looks like 3 files (as below) have been changed since the > commit in a way that would need a decision upon revert. I guess those > are likely to be keeping the changes from main. Assuming so, seems > like "git revert 67256c61b -Xours" would work. > > Though, perhaps worth looking closer at > activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml to see if the > change there (and related property restored in the module pom file) is > needed, it doesnt immediately seem that related to the api change. > > both modified: activemq-client/pom.xml > both modified: > activemq-karaf-itest/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/karaf/itest/ActiveMQBrokerNdCamelFeatureTest.java > both modified: activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 16:01, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >> > >
