I'll open a PR for revert it On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:33 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> 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 > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >
