Hi guys unfortunately, we can't update "just" jetty version as jetty-all uber jar is broken. That's why I did both changes in the same PR.
I think it's pretty safe to include this change in 5.17.0. Thoughts ? Regards JB On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:55 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would say the same things (well, did on the PR). Either way, only > other thing to do seems to be creating a branch and reverting 7309. > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 14:19, Christopher Shannon > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >
