Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 6.1.1 release
+1 binding On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 2:06 PM Cesar Hernandez wrote: > +1 (non-binding) thank you! > > El mié, 3 abr 2024 a las 11:31, Matt Pavlovich () > escribió: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > - Reviewed PRs and JIRA issues > > - Downloaded dist tar.gz and exercised the broker > > > > Thanks JB! > > > > Matt Pavlovich > > > > > On Apr 2, 2024, at 12:40 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > I submit Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 6.1.1 release to your vote. > > > > > > This release includes: > > > - fix on the StatisticPlugin to include firstMessageTimestamp field > > > - Add missing JVM arg for sun.nio (required for some transport > > connectors) > > > - remove "old" client jakarta module > > > - fix authentication on Docker images > > > - Spring 6.1.5 update (including CVE fix) > > > - several other dependency updates (log4j 2.23.1, slf4j 2.0.12, ...) > > > > > > You can take a look on Release Notes for details: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12354418 > > > > > > Maven Staging Repository: > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1393/ > > > > > > Dist Staging Repository: > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/6.1.1/ > > > > > > Git tag: activemq-6.1.1 > > > > > > Please vote to approve this release: > > > [ ] +1 Approve the release > > > [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments) > > > > > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > Thanks ! > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > -- > Atentamente: > César Hernández. >
Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from Jira to GitHub Issues
I am also on the Accumulo PMC and on that project we use Github issues and no longer use Jira. This switch was made before my time so I'm not sure of the reasoning. Personally, I don't really care too much either way as I've used both but I will just point out 2 things from my experience with it. 1) For version tracking, we use projects and not milestones. I don't know if this is the best way to do things but that's what we have been using and seems to work ok as you can list multiple projects (versions) for an Issue or PR: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects?type=classic 2) Robbie's point about whether or not Issues get opened is a really good point and something that is not consistent at all in Accumulo. What I have found is it is all over the place. In some cases people just open PRs and essentially are self documenting issues with the fix. In other cases people open up issues and then open up PRs. It does get confusing sometimes since they share the same numbering and name space. It may make sense to try and establish some guidelines if we go with Github Issues just so we are consistent about it. On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 2:40 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote: > > > > On Apr 4, 2024, at 1:26 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > > > To the later point around Discussions, I do think enabling those could > > be good either way since, just like with Jira, people will often > > create Issues to ask questions rather than e.g mail a mailing list. > > They might use a Discussion instead though. > > +1 agree that having discussions enabled would be an upgrade for users, big > improvement over mailing lists. > > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 20:52, Justin Bertram wrote: > >> > >> There's been a few threads about this general subject, but most have > >> concentrated on Classic in particular. I think it's worth discussing > >> migration of ActiveMQ as a whole and diving a bit deeper into the details > >> of why a migration makes (or doesn't make) sense and what the challenges > >> may be. > >> > >> To this end I've put together this document [1]. I hope it will be of > >> service to the community as we consider this option. > >> > >> > >> Justin > >> > >> [1] > >> https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-website/wiki/Apache-ActiveMQ-GitHub-Issues-Migration-Review >
Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from Jira to GitHub Issues
> On Apr 4, 2024, at 1:26 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > To the later point around Discussions, I do think enabling those could > be good either way since, just like with Jira, people will often > create Issues to ask questions rather than e.g mail a mailing list. > They might use a Discussion instead though. +1 agree that having discussions enabled would be an upgrade for users, big improvement over mailing lists. > On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 20:52, Justin Bertram wrote: >> >> There's been a few threads about this general subject, but most have >> concentrated on Classic in particular. I think it's worth discussing >> migration of ActiveMQ as a whole and diving a bit deeper into the details >> of why a migration makes (or doesn't make) sense and what the challenges >> may be. >> >> To this end I've put together this document [1]. I hope it will be of >> service to the community as we consider this option. >> >> >> Justin >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-website/wiki/Apache-ActiveMQ-GitHub-Issues-Migration-Review
Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from Jira to GitHub Issues
I prefer Jira for issue tracking, I think it's better at it, particularly for cases like 5.x / 6.x having multiple active release streams with lots of backports, given the limitations of Milestone handling and how people tend to treat xref'ing to fully compensate for that (i.e they often dont bother). I would be fine with adopting Issues too though, I use Issues plenty elsewhere where it's enabled by default and the only option anyway hehe. I expect most users reporting things would prefer Issues at this point, especially anyone intende to raise a PR, and most particularly all the folks without Jira accounts already (of course, I also think many of those asking for accounts dont actually need one; see Discussions note at end). I dont actually think every component needs to use the exact same labels etc. People are already used to just about every other GitHub repo they encounter at this point which uses Issue having their own labels. For me, the labels just need to make sense in themselves. Though the default ones are simple, so I'd be fine with them, which would then just happen to be consistent. It's not clear to me anyone proposing to move to Issues actually intended thus far to migrate any of the [open] issues from Jira to Github Issues, so much as just start using Github Issues and thus effectively 'clearing the cruft' by leaving it where it is, then raising new issues going forward? To the later point around Discussions, I do think enabling those could be good either way since, just like with Jira, people will often create Issues to ask questions rather than e.g mail a mailing list. They might use a Discussion instead though. On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 20:52, Justin Bertram wrote: > > There's been a few threads about this general subject, but most have > concentrated on Classic in particular. I think it's worth discussing > migration of ActiveMQ as a whole and diving a bit deeper into the details > of why a migration makes (or doesn't make) sense and what the challenges > may be. > > To this end I've put together this document [1]. I hope it will be of > service to the community as we consider this option. > > > Justin > > [1] > https://github.com/jbertram/activemq-website/wiki/Apache-ActiveMQ-GitHub-Issues-Migration-Review
Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from Jira to GitHub Issues
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 21:14, Matt Pavlovich wrote: > > Hello @dev- > > I argue that we are effectively already using GitHub for issues, JIRA is just > getting a back-port sync of the discussion. The reality is that code-change > discussions are occurring on the PRs, not in JIRA or mailing lists-- and that > makes sense. It is far easier to have a discussion while referencing the line > of code and providing a checklist of issues to resolve to the committer. The > GitHub-to-JIRA synchronization is noisy and generates a lot of text in the > JIRA comments that aren't really legible. > That argument seems centered on the code discussion on a PR being the main interesting bit of a Jira / Issue. For me, and I expect a lot of users, I'd say it is often rather more the initial description/report for e.g what a bug is, the collating of the [often multiple and separate] commits made to fix it, and the release version tracking, that tend to be as much or more interesting aspect of a Jira than what are often just 'working thoughts' comments on a PR to get from the initial proposed change to whatever is pushed. For that stuff, indeed the PR is often a better place for to see that in-context. This would be true for me, and again I expect a lot of users, regardless whether it was an Issue or a Jira being used to track things (or at least, would be supposing people adequately xref commits/Issues to make up for the limitations in Issues/PRs use of Milestones to track versions...i.e they can only point to 1). (On the comments, the Github updates on our Jira's go in as 'work log' entries rather than regular comments, so they actually aren't in the way normally) > The JIRA issue-to-PR process is cumbersome, there's now even a "NO-JIRA" > process to work around that reality -- and that has led to back-and-forth on > certain issues that start NO-JIRA, and then need to have a JIRA created and > vice-versa. > Thats been happening since before PRs were an option, started due to direct commit/push behaviour where PRs wouldnt have existed anyway, and could essentially still happen with Issues too depending on what approach were to be decided on for Issue <-> PR relationship, i.e whether an issue is always needed or if a PR alone is sufficient. It was me that initially coined the NO-JIRA thing over at Qpid > 10 years ago, as an escape for a commit hook that required a Jira ref, to help prod people that were not creating Jiras for actually-quite-important/notable changes out of pure laziness, and make it clear it wasnt then 'just an oversight' it was omitted. Alas, since the ASF operated on a single foundation-wide Subversion repository at the time, and due to the way the hook had to actually operate as a result, it was found to be too slow to justify applying it to every commit at the ASF just for one/some projects benefit to prod people to be less lazy, and so that side ultimately didnt happen. The commit message bit stuck around though, migrated, and has over time become just as abused as reference'less commit logs were. Doh :) The equivalent while having Issues instead of Jira's would center around deciding if we wanted to always have an Issue for a given change even if a PR is being raised, given that whilst they do share a number space they are still defaulted to mostly being distinct things in the UI and URLs. I expect many people making changes often won't bother to raise an Issue, just the PR (or again, sometimes neither). Most people not interested in making changes (i.e most user reports) will of course just raise an Issue alone. Often people will raise a non-xref'd PR for the same thing even though the Issue exists, since they didnt raise or notice that Issue themselves originally (same happen with Jira's too). This is an annoyance I find with Issues and PRs, sharing a number space and being treated similarly by many, while still being considered quite separate especially in the UI and URls (the main annoyance being Milestone handling, where you can only have 1, which I find it means most projects just have useless or no release notes for their non-latest releases as a result, and you really just need to look at the tags and commits to see what you need) > Issues: > - Customizable templates that can enforce policy to reduce back-and-forth > with in-experienced issue submitters. I find those templates as much just increase the number of Issues littered with templates not actually filled in. > > Release notes: > - Simple generation, template-izable and ability to customize at release > time (ie to remove any NO-JIRA type things that don't need to be in release > notes) > > In terms of migration complexity, I think the numbers make the migration > effort look larger than the actual reality on the ground. We are really > talking about 2 active repos (activemq & artemis) and 1 periodically updated > repo (nms). > > Migration can be over time and on a project-by-project or repo-by-repo basis. > The
Re: ASF board report due by Tues, April 9 - new procedure, please read
Hi Justin,
GitHub Issues discussion is interesting for the board, but I would
like more discussions between us.
Regards
JB
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 4:45 PM Justin Bertram wrote:
>
> I added detail about Artemis based on JB's draft.
>
> I wondered if we might add a note about the fact we're considering moving
> to GitHub Issues, but I wasn't sure that's something the board would care
> about, and I wasn't sure where to add it.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:56 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > I created a new draft (based on yours) containing ActiveMQ "classic"
> > details.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > It is that time once again to assemble the latest ASF board report. As
> > > mentioned previously, I would like us to begin using the Reporter tool to
> > > assemble reports to the ASF board. The idea being that anyone with access
> > > to the Reporter tool can log in and enter their contributions directly
> > to a
> > > given report. We will no longer be assembling the report using git.
> > >
> > > As you contribute to the report, you can reflow sections and then save
> > your
> > > contributions as a draft. This will leave the report in draft form (i.e.
> > > not published). When the report is due, the PMC chair will log in to
> > > Reporter to review and finalize the report as well as publish it to
> > Whimsy.
> > >
> > > So, please log in to the Reporter tool via the following URL and begin
> > > entering your contributions to this month's report and save them as a
> > draft.
> > >
> > > https://reporter.apache.org/wizard/?activemq
> > >
> > > As noted above and previously, while logged in to the Reporter tool,
> > please
> > > DO NOT click the 'Publish to Whimsy' button.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if you have any questions.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > --
> > > perl -e 'print
> > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E > > http://bsnyder.org/
Re: ASF board report due by Tues, April 9 - new procedure, please read
I added detail about Artemis based on JB's draft.
I wondered if we might add a note about the fact we're considering moving
to GitHub Issues, but I wasn't sure that's something the board would care
about, and I wasn't sure where to add it.
Justin
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:56 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> I created a new draft (based on yours) containing ActiveMQ "classic"
> details.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > It is that time once again to assemble the latest ASF board report. As
> > mentioned previously, I would like us to begin using the Reporter tool to
> > assemble reports to the ASF board. The idea being that anyone with access
> > to the Reporter tool can log in and enter their contributions directly
> to a
> > given report. We will no longer be assembling the report using git.
> >
> > As you contribute to the report, you can reflow sections and then save
> your
> > contributions as a draft. This will leave the report in draft form (i.e.
> > not published). When the report is due, the PMC chair will log in to
> > Reporter to review and finalize the report as well as publish it to
> Whimsy.
> >
> > So, please log in to the Reporter tool via the following URL and begin
> > entering your contributions to this month's report and save them as a
> draft.
> >
> > https://reporter.apache.org/wizard/?activemq
> >
> > As noted above and previously, while logged in to the Reporter tool,
> please
> > DO NOT click the 'Publish to Whimsy' button.
> >
> > Please let me know if you have any questions.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E > http://bsnyder.org/
Re: ASF board report due by Tues, April 9 - new procedure, please read
Hi Bruce,
I created a new draft (based on yours) containing ActiveMQ "classic" details.
Regards
JB
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> It is that time once again to assemble the latest ASF board report. As
> mentioned previously, I would like us to begin using the Reporter tool to
> assemble reports to the ASF board. The idea being that anyone with access
> to the Reporter tool can log in and enter their contributions directly to a
> given report. We will no longer be assembling the report using git.
>
> As you contribute to the report, you can reflow sections and then save your
> contributions as a draft. This will leave the report in draft form (i.e.
> not published). When the report is due, the PMC chair will log in to
> Reporter to review and finalize the report as well as publish it to Whimsy.
>
> So, please log in to the Reporter tool via the following URL and begin
> entering your contributions to this month's report and save them as a draft.
>
> https://reporter.apache.org/wizard/?activemq
>
> As noted above and previously, while logged in to the Reporter tool, please
> DO NOT click the 'Publish to Whimsy' button.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E http://bsnyder.org/
