I will say that we can update the version of Jetty but if you want to play it safe since you are about the cut the release you could keep the "all" jar for now and do the dependency changes in 5.18.0
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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 >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> >
