+1, i've never liked including jetty-all and might as well keep it up to date with a major release.
I think we are good to go , I did a review of a 5.17.0 snapshot build last week and things looked good. I will review the official release of course but I think we are in good shape. On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >
