In my opinion there is a bit of more work to do before 3.0 could be released. For example:
- Remove all deprecated methods, config, etc. (this is not a small amount of work) - Update all the config with the new inclusive terms Personally I don't really see how we could do the logging change on 2.x as it's a breaking change. Folks won't be able to follow the normal upgrade procedure [1] since it will break their logging configuration. I also think that anything we want to remove in 3.0 should be deprecated for at least 1 release of 2.x. Justin [1] https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/upgrading.html On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:43 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > hmmm... this is actually pointless.. (the 2.x branch so far). > > > I had to cherry-pick *everything* except to 1 commit: > > ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit > e654eba > > > > We could definitely release from main right now... > > > and I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the logging change on a 2.x > branch.... I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x > branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should > start working on it). > > > What do you think? > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > @Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and > > changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump > > to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly > > rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should > > rename it based on these two things. > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will > > > be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called > > > 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x > > > > > > (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now) > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main? > > > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic > > > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an > enhancement, > > > > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead > of > > > > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an > enhancement > > > > > being part of it). > > > > > > > > > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the > 2.25.x > > > > > branch (after a few days). > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic > > > > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git > cherry-pick > > > > > > -x <commit-id>) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > >
