@jb- no problem. I’ll ping you on slack to coordinate the revert.
> On Mar 1, 2022, at 7:32 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
