Well, I thought that was quite productive, we collectively managed to close 20 Jiras out of the 273 on the list and processed 93!
Still a few more to go though, so let's do this again on Thursday, same bat-time, some bat-channel. Log of the discussion from partychat for the interested: [3:09 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, QPID-24, still a problem, yes? [3:09 pm] aidan.x.skinner Rob: how about QPID-42? [3:09 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob, Aidan I thought Arnaud did some work for the dtx stuff [3:09 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] not sure how complete it is [3:09 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] will do in a bit [3:10 pm] aidan.x.skinner Rajith: I don't think it's complete, so it should still be open [3:10 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 42 I'd have to check... [3:10 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] let me bring up an IDE with the code in [3:11 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 24 is still an issue for the java Broker [3:11 pm] aidan.x.skinner Thanks. Please update it either way, since it sounds like you have some more information than what's in the bug [3:11 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] agreed it should be open - can we make an action item for arnaud to comment on the JIRA to let us know what is done and what needs to be done [3:11 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] aidan: i can read the code if that's what you mean [3:11 pm] aidan.x.skinner rajith: if you want to mail him, feel free. I'm only lookign for jira status changes just now though. [3:11 pm] aidan.x.skinner rob: I do. [3:12 pm] aidan.x.skinner carl: qpid-106, does the c++ broker do SSL now? [3:12 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] no [3:13 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] there is a guy in the community that has done most of it [3:13 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] but the patch is not complete yet [3:13 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok. qpid-107 needs split. [3:14 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 42 is still an issue on the Java Broker [3:14 pm] aidan.x.skinner oh? might be useful to update with that information. [3:14 pm] aidan.x.skinner martin: can you split qpid 107 into a java broker and a c++ (sorry, you did the java work so you get the fun ;>) [3:14 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] ack [3:14 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob are u taking over QPID-24? or are we gonna assign it to arnaud for an update? [3:15 pm] aidan.x.skinner I'm pretty sure QPD-142 (transactions not atomic in the face of failover) is fixed [3:15 pm] aidan.x.skinner at least for the java client [3:16 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] only the 08/09 client? [3:16 pm] aidan.x.skinner does it not throw in 0-10? [3:16 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs? [3:17 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I'm not doing anything on 24 [3:17 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] rob - ok cool - aidan can we assign that to arnaud - I assume u are updating as we go [3:17 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] aidan let me ping rafi [3:17 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] i would suggest we don't assign anything to anybody yet [3:18 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] we should work out priorities first [3:18 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] +1 to not assigning [3:18 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] people can be free to take them if they want [3:18 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] rob agreed [3:18 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I'm sure we'll hit 24 when we do 0-10 support [3:18 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, 142 could still be a problem i think so moving on [3:18 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] yep [3:19 pm] aidan.x.skinner anybody know anything about QPID-144? [3:20 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] tumbleweeds [3:20 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] sorry slow loading [3:21 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Think this is still an issue .. will take note of ID as I think a newer jira superseds this [3:21 pm] aidan.x.skinner thanks [3:21 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-218, the python client now speaks 0-9 doesn't it? [3:22 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] aidan Rafi is the best to answer that question [3:22 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I think it does [3:22 pm] aidan.x.skinner yes, good, next. [3:23 pm] aidan.x.skinner anybody know anything about ruby? [3:23 pm] aidan.x.skinner for QPID-219, also 0-9 support [3:24 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] For 0-9 I would say if things don't support it now; they never will [3:25 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: I'd guess the answer is mostly yes. [3:25 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: but it's a guess [3:25 pm] aidan.x.skinner well, i looked in teh code and the test is only for 0-8 [3:26 pm] aidan.x.skinner close as WONTFIX? [3:27 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] I'd leave it.. it may be an easy route for a new ruby developer [3:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner Martin: QPID-272 is... open? dead? [3:27 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] before taking on the 0-10 changes [3:28 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] We need to test it but I fear it may still be an issue. [3:28 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Should like to other client exception handling QPid-940>? [3:28 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah [3:29 pm] aidan.x.skinner right, QPID-287, rhs? [3:30 pm] aidan.x.skinner it talks about the 0-9 branch so I'm presuming it's irrelevant [3:30 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] I think that's a safe guess. [3:30 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] .. it is also talking about a code generator.. but doesn't say which one [3:30 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] aidan its irrelevamt [3:31 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] s/aidan/aidan:/ [3:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner next up is qpid-329 [3:31 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Feature Request [3:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner I don't understand it [3:31 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Do we just keep it? [3:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner i think so [3:31 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I think that one requires AMQP level changes [3:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner qpid-363 then [3:32 pm] aidan.x.skinner has anybody looked at/applied that patch? [3:32 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] No, but the question is still open. [3:32 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Should we throw an exception or is returning null valid? [3:32 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah, having read it a bit more carefully i feel ambilavent about that [3:32 pm] aidan.x.skinner next [3:33 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-370, spec violation? [3:33 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] as with 371 [3:33 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] don't fix [3:33 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Extra broker over head but for strict AMQP I think we need to do it. [3:33 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] the naming rules are relaxed for 0-10... [3:34 pm] aidan.x.skinner for 370 and 371? [3:34 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] y [3:35 pm] aidan.x.skinner awesome [3:35 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-380, I think this is still an issue [3:36 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] agreed [3:36 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] It has been partially done [3:36 pm] aidan.x.skinner can you add some information about what you did and what still needs doing? thanks [3:36 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] grr [3:36 pm] aidan.x.skinner [3:37 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-393, rob? how's the alerting in the refactored broker lookign? [3:37 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] hope it is better than M2.1! [3:39 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, martin, QPID-429, client timeouts [3:40 pm] aidan.x.skinner I thikn we're better than we were, is this all exposed now? [3:40 pm] aidan.x.skinner Rob: and with QPID-430, does the age alerting work with the house keeping threads for expiry now? [3:41 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 430 is still an issue and should be wired to the housekeeping [3:41 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 430 is still an issue [3:41 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 429 is better but we need to bring the 09/8 and 10 together [3:42 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 431 is my bad! [3:42 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] still a problem [3:42 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 393 is not done [3:43 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-437, does the c++ broker implement mandatory yet? [3:43 pm] aidan.x.skinner I sort of presume it must for 0-10 support [3:43 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] I'll check. [3:44 pm] aidan.x.skinner thanks [3:44 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] well - it ain't called mandatory anymore [3:44 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] and C++ broker doesn't do 08/9:) [3:44 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I would say kill that JIRA [3:44 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] since it is talking to 0-8/0-9 compliance [3:44 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ack [3:44 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 0-10 compliance if a whole different kettle of fish [3:45 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] gsim says it does not implement mandatory [3:45 pm] aidan.x.skinner thanks [3:45 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] that would be a different defect though [3:45 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] or the 0-10 equivalent (discard-unroutable) [3:45 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I think we should raise non-ambiguous 0-10 complaince defects [3:46 pm] aidan.x.skinner rob: QPID-469? [3:46 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] fine by me [3:46 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] what about 462? [3:46 pm] aidan.x.skinner does the new broker record relidvery per message per queue? [3:46 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] what about 462? [3:46 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] keep up [3:46 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] Aidan: 469 should be fixed [3:47 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] 9already fixed that is) [3:47 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] No-one mentuioned 462 yet [3:47 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Ah ok.. sorry local context [3:47 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] It is a duplicate of the problem in QPid 545 [3:48 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] My only point on 462 is that as it is you couldn't change anything... but if you were talking a bout an auto-delete queue with an exclusive consumer you could actually discard the messages on arrival at the queue [3:48 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] (not the same as an exclusive queue) [3:49 pm] aidan.x.skinner Did anybody ever fix QPID-494? (broker doesn't set exit code when it fails to start) [3:49 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 494 : nope [3:49 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah, just realised i could check that myself [3:49 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 462 . could you not discard message on arrival to queue if it was persistent? [3:50 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, QPID-497, pything test for codec.py. rhs? [3:50 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Jumping back to 469 [3:51 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] I QueueEntry delegates to the message for redelivered. [3:51 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] so I'd say it is still an issue. [3:52 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] oops - so it does [3:52 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] that should be fixed then [3:52 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] rhs: just goy up from desk, talking to justin on an issue [3:53 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, i'll skip the python ones then [3:54 pm] aidan.x.skinner rob: can you reopen that one and paste this conversation into it? [3:54 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] which one 469? [3:54 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah [3:54 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] back now [3:54 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] QPID-497 can be closed [3:55 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, how about 498? [3:55 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] QPID-498 can be closed as well [3:55 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] QPID-506 can be also be closed [3:55 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] QPID-518 as well [3:56 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] QPID-519 can be rolled up with any other general documentation issues [3:56 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] or just closed [3:56 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, can you make those changes (I got as far as 506) [3:57 pm] aidan.x.skinner Martin: 509 I think is still a problem, y/n? [3:57 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] indeed [3:57 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] yes [3:57 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] we should really fix that! [3:57 pm] aidan.x.skinner please set priorty appropriately then [3:57 pm] aidan.x.skinner "major" is actually "medium" [3:58 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: about QPID-519? [3:58 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: yes? [3:58 pm] aidan.x.skinner closeable? [3:59 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: yes [3:59 pm] aidan.x.skinner also, QPID-522, does ant generate javadoc for us? [3:59 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] good question, lemmie check [4:00 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] we should really add javadoc generation to an automated build somewhere [4:00 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] we should really add javadoc [4:00 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] rhs we could do that in CC and we can add a link to it in our wiki [4:01 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] it would be nice to have it auto publish to somewhere public [4:01 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, anybody know anything about QPID-539 - does headersexchange implement isBound properly now? [4:01 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] similar to the way we have a link to the rpms [4:01 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] skipping over 524? [4:01 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah, i don't want to start that discussion [4:01 pm] aidan.x.skinner and the next few are c++ thigns i know aren't implemented [4:01 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I think we should just close that JIRA [4:01 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 539 no [4:01 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidain: "ant doc" generates javadoc with a whole lot of warnings [4:02 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] (524 hould be closed, that is) [4:02 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: shock [4:02 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] since a) the situation is now even worse [4:02 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] and we currently have no plans to do anything about it [4:02 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok [4:03 pm] aidan.x.skinner 545 is still an issue, yes? [4:03 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] yes [4:03 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] Yes - there is now an alternative however [4:03 pm] aidan.x.skinner please add details of said alternative to jira [4:03 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] i.e. use selectors on bind between queue and exchange [4:04 pm] aidan.x.skinner martin: did you not do QPID-570? [4:04 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] two ticks was in the page fold [4:04 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] aidan: I think the JIRA as is still stands i think we need a new JIRA on utilising the binding option [4:05 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] a yes/no.. yes we did but it was done in docbook and no because we've not maintained it [4:05 pm] aidan.x.skinner so no to both, rob, can you raise the new one then? [4:06 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: QPID-572, still a problem? [4:06 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I could Let me do that now... [4:06 pm] aidan.x.skinner Was there a test written for it? [4:07 pm] aidan.x.skinner rob: thanks [4:07 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: my memory of that is hazy, but I *think* it was fixed... [4:10 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: same for 573 [4:10 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] 572 is probably less of an issue with the replacement of the CSDM [4:10 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] but as it was a narley race condition to start with it might be hard to test for [4:11 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] s/narley/gnarley/ [4:11 pm] partychat0 "martin" meant but as it was a gnarley race condition to start with it might be hard to test for [4:11 pm] aidan.x.skinner martin: what news of 578? [4:13 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] I think it is still pending [4:13 pm] aidan.x.skinner also, QPID-580, I'm unclear as to what the coments mean [4:15 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] Just looking at code [4:15 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] for 578 [4:17 pm] aidan.x.skinner right, and 602? I presume we still need to add that test? [4:18 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: how about QPID-641?are you testing against 0-10 field table encoding now? [4:19 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: yes [4:19 pm] partychat0 ["rhs"] aidan: that can be closed [4:19 pm] aidan.x.skinner sweet [4:20 pm] aidan.x.skinner anybody know anything about QPID-656? it's a 0-10 java client / C++ broker bug about x-match [4:21 pm] partychat0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] no idea [4:21 pm] aidan.x.skinner rob: QPID-659, is selector performance in the new broker better / acceptable? [4:21 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] it should be [4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] certainly the bug described in there should be gone [4:22 pm] aidan.x.skinner is there a test? [4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] for 659 - no [4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] but selectors work differently now... [4:22 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, i'm commenting on the jira and leaving it now [4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I think that can be closed [4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] it talks about pre-delivery queues [4:22 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] which no longer exist [4:23 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah, but it's really about selector performance [4:23 pm] aidan.x.skinner which is a major thing for at least one of our users [4:24 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] no it's not (about performance) [4:24 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: how about 669? [4:24 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] if you read the JIRA it's about an inifinite loop [4:24 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] If a message that doesn't match a the consumers selector arrives on the queue the asynchronous delivery manager will not terminate. [4:24 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] Due to the use of a pre-delivery queue a message that is not desired by any consumer will stick in the queue. This will then cause the async delivery process to loop consuming a large amount of CPU. The async process will not stop because there are 'message on the queue' and 'active consumers'. [4:24 pm] aidan.x.skinner yeah, but the other option would be to raise a jira to write a test to test that it's faster [4:25 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] I think there is room for a JIRA on wiriting performance tests for selectors [4:25 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] but that is a completely separate issue [4:25 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] the actual performace of selecting will be no better [4:25 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] but there is no longer an inifinite loop bug [4:25 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok [4:25 pm] partychat0 ["rob"] (or if there is, not the same one ) [4:26 pm] aidan.x.skinner QPID-1169 filed [4:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner rhs: also, is QPID-673 still an issue? [4:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner (talking about needing a Session interface) [4:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner and 675 to 676? [4:29 pm] aidan.x.skinner martin: QPID-677? that's presumably needing upped to critical? [4:30 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] There needs to be a broker test written for it [4:30 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] IIRC we have made changes that fix this [4:30 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] it isn't critical [4:30 pm] partychat0 ["martin"] The broker shouldn't be editing the properties anywaay [4:33 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok [4:40 pm] aidan.x.skinner ok, i'm drawing a line here [4:41 pm] aidan.x.skinner well done everyone, we closed out 20 jiras [4:41 pm] aidan.x.skinner I'll send mail about picking this up again later
