Hi About jetty PR, I gonna merge it.
For AMQ-7309, I guess Matt should revert it, right ? Regards JB Le mar. 1 mars 2022 à 13:43, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Where are we on the release timetable now? Looks like AMQ-7309 still needs > to be reverted and the PR is still open for jetty. > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It's probably fine to change since the uber jar can't be used anymore, as > > long as the tests all pass for things like websocket and the web console > > fires up of course, etc. > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:37 AM Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> @JB Let me know if it would be helpful to look at AMQ-7309 revert or > >> other release tasks. I’ll be online and on Slack all day. > >> > >> > On Feb 28, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Christopher Shannon < > >> christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Good catch Robbie, I forgot about still needing to revert 7309 to keep > >> all > >> > the JMS 2.0 stuff in 5.18.0 > >> > > >> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM 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 > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > >> >
