Hi JB- All my priority changes are in. I just now pushed the unit for AMQ-5137. That one is not critical and could go now, or wait for 5.18.0.
Thanks, Matt Pavlovich > On Feb 28, 2022, at 1:38 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>
