Sounds good. Thanks everyone -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 2:46 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > The stale bot is at 60 days for now. > > We can’t filter the PR or issue by label for instance. > > I propose to increase the stake not period to 90 days for now, to give us > flexibility and scale up. > > Regards > JB > > Le lun. 2 mars 2026 à 11:32, Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> a écrit > : > > > JL- > > > > I’ve reviewed 2 PRs and am marching on the others. > > > > One thought on stalebot: > > > > I agree that the stablebot is a little aggressive— do we have options for > > it to skip WIP or Draft PRs? It is fair for some large things to take > > longer than 30days > > > > Thanks! > > Matt > > > > > On Mar 2, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Jean-Baptiste. > > > > > > There is no rush per se. > > > > > > I understand we all have paid work to do to feed our families and pay > the > > > bills. I'm not blaming anyone and hopefully no one is upset. > > > > > > The last improvement highlights an issue with our current way of > working, > > > in my view. I wasn't heavily involved when Artemis was still in the > > AtiveMQ > > > TLP. Maybe the pool of contributors was bigger, but currently, most > > reviews > > > come from JB, Matt and Chris. And I can't say how much I appreciate > your > > > continous help. > > > > > > We require reviews to merge. We have a bot to close stale PRs. Great. > Now > > > if we start closing PRs not because they are stale but because the > > project > > > organization prevents timely reviews, we have something to rework. > > > > > > That was the intent of my email. My apologies if it was not perceived > > that > > > way. > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 12:25 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi > > >> > > >> Thanks for the update. > > >> > > >> Sorry I’m a bit late on the reviews as I was travelling during the > > weekend. > > >> > > >> I will take a look today. > > >> > > >> Thanks ! > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> JB > > >> > > >> Le lun. 2 mars 2026 à 04:55, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > > [email protected] > > >>> > > >> a écrit : > > >> > > >>> Hi all, > > >>> > > >>> Our setup requires PRs to be reviewed, which I think is good. We also > > >> have > > >>> a bot to mark old PRs as stale and closes them, which is also a good > > >> thing. > > >>> > > >>> Now, we need to be diligent reviewing PRs. For instance, I had to > > remove > > >>> the stale label from my PRs to prevent them from being closed. > > >>> > > >>> I'd appreciate some help reviewing my PRs if possible. > > >>> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1541 --> MQTT module changes > > >>> similar to the other modules. It aims to run eligible tests in > > parallel. > > >> At > > >>> first glance, there is no breaking change. We are running the same > > tests > > >> as > > >>> before. We've merged all other PRs, so this module is the same. CI is > > >>> green. > > >>> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1661 --> simple PR to enable > > >>> wiring > > >>> the SSL context into the ManagementContext. A user opened another PR. > > I'm > > >>> not sure if we need both. This relates to feature request AMQ-9857 > > >>> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1711 --> flaky tests again. > I > > >> keep > > >>> opening and fixing tests as we go. Sometimes, tests require various > > >>> incremental fixes. I apologize for that but it's difficult to > reproduce > > >> the > > >>> exact conditions locally to make the tests fail. > > >>> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1712 --> Jakarta TCK setup > > into > > >>> its > > >>> own module. No impact, TCK won't run unless you add the profile. > > >>> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1666 --> race condition on > the > > >>> exception and transport listener. > > >>> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1728 --> async send > proposal. > > >>> Willing to get feedback because it's a production change to support > > async > > >>> send for JMS 3.1 which I can pass with it. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> They are all green, so I'd appraciate some help to review them. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > > > >
