Looking at it more I think that in this particular case it's not a big risk to include since it's just logging so it's probably fine. But as I said I find very little value in having a toggle mode so I would be a -1 to include in the current form and think the toggle mode should be removed. That will make the change even simpler. If you want to update and rebase we can get it merged.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:53 PM Étienne Hossack <activ...@hossack.me> wrote: > Not that I disagree we should be moving to faster releases, but they've > been sitting approved for months now ready to merge, so I think it's > reasonable to request they make it in this release. (the base PR was > simplified according to comments and never revisited) > > It's also really trivial for me to change that PR to remove the toggle and > happy to do so, but as it stands, the PRs were approved. > > (FWIW I've also let JB know off this mailing list, just wanting to raise > visibility of that discussion now) > > -- > Étienne > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, at 10:47 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote: > > I don't really like the toggle option. I think it just overly complicates > > it for no reason. I think you either change it or don't so I think it > makes > > sense to skip it for 5.17 as we are trying to finalize the release and > then > > target it for 5.18.0 and make the changes without any flags. We should be > > going to a faster release process so I wouldn't expect it to take too > long. > > > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Étienne Hossack <activ...@hossack.me> > wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>> > >> >
