Hey all, There's been a few PRs open for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 (specifically AMQ-8317) that have not had traction in a while. I can rebase/re-open them, but it would be good to get the ball rolling on these in an earlier release so that the removal can happen in a subsequent release.
They originally targeted 5.17.0 and I'd like to still target that version. Of course it was suggested from JB that we don't take the toggle approach of AMQ-8317 simply change the logging, but regardless of the approach I'd appreciate the approved PRs not to simply hang there :) Cheers, Étienne On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 7:01 AM, Matt Pavlovich wrote: > @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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>
