+1 I merged the Jetty PR in the meantime.
Regards JB On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:29 PM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
