Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0

[Clebert Suconic]

+1 binding

Clebert Suconic


On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 5:22 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> I checked things out as follows:
> - Ran the build from the source archive on OpenJDK 17.
> - Used the jetty plugin to serve the console standalone, connecting it
>   remotely to a latest 2.38.0-SNAPSHOT broker instance.
>
> Great work!!! The only thing that I miss from the old console is the update
> of the url in the address bar of the browser.
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 at 11:26, Andy Taylor  wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0 release.
> > This is RC3.
> >
> > This is the 1st release of the ActiveMQ Console so only has 1 jira
> >
> > [ARTEMIS-4680] - Upgrade the console to use HawtIO 4
> >
> > The release notes can be found here:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ARTEMIS/versions/12354639
> >
> > Source and Binary distributions can be found here:
> >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis-console/1.0.0/
> >
> > The Maven staging repository is here:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1409
> >
> > If you would like to validate the release you can either:
> >
> > 1. Check out the source, build and follow the readme instructions
> > (README.md) to deploy and smoke test the console
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2. Download the binary distribution and deploy in a web container
> >
> > or
> >
> > 3. Use a branch I have created based on Artemis 2.37.0 to build Artemis
> > with the console embedded, see
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/5245
> >
> >
> > It is tagged in the git repo as 1.0.0
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve this release
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> > Here's my +1
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0

[Clebert Suconic]

+1 Binding..


I ran the broker with the new console.. and it's a lot superior...
very smooth.. nice job andy!


On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 9:47 AM Andy Taylor  wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis Console 1.0.0 release.
>
> This is the 1st release of the ActiveMQ Console so only has 1 jira
>
> [ARTEMIS-4680] - Upgrade the console to use HawtIO 4
>
> The release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ARTEMIS/versions/12354639
>
> Source and Binary distributions can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis-console/1.0.0/
>
> The Maven staging repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1405
>
> If you would like to validate the release you can either:
>
> 1. Check out the source, build and follow the readme instructions
> (README.md) to deploy and smoke test the console
>
> or
>
> 2. Download the binary distribution and deploy in a we container
>
> or
>
> 3. Use a branch I have created based on Artemis 2.37.0 to build Artemis
> with the console embedded, see
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/5245
>
>
> It is tagged in the git repo as 1.0.0
>
> [ ] +1 approve this release
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my +1



--
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 Released

[Clebert Suconic]

I am pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0

Downloads are now available at:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/


For a complete list of updates:

https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/release-notes-2.37.0




There's now a differentiation in profile between running the broker
and tools. So if you specialize your broker with specific JVM
properties those are not going to be part of tools. Same also for
log4j.


There is also a fix with compatibility:

 Replication/Vote incompatibility between versions up to 2.31.2
(inclusive) and 2.32.0 - 2.36.0




Thank you all for your contributions to this release.


-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[RESULT] [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 (CR2)

[Clebert Suconic]

The Vote passed with 5 Votes - 4 bindings - 1 binding

Binding:

Clebert Suconic
Robbie Gemmel
Timothy Bish
Justin Bertram


Non Binding:

Howard Gao



Thank you for the time on evaluating the release.

I will push the release and send the announcement when everything is ready


On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:26 AM Justin Bertram  wrote:
>
> Built from source. Ran a few tests. Looks good!
>
> +1
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:19 AM Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
>
> >  I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 release.
> >
> > I would like to highlight:
> >
> > - We fixed an issue with compatibility between 2.31.1 and 2.32.0:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986
> >
> > - We introduced profiles differentiating the broker execution from
> > tools on the CLI.
> >
> >
> > For a full release notes:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354977
> >
> >
> > The git report:
> >
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.37.0
> >
> >
> > Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.37.0
> >
> >
> > The Maven staging repository is here:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1403
> >
> >
> >
> > If you would like to validate the release:
> >
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
> >
> > The release is tagged as 2.37.0 in the git repository
> >
> > Notice the release was retagged since CR1 failed. Please make sure you
> > do git fetch --tags --force
> >
> > 2.37.0 is tagged as this commit:
> >
> > commit 0ec68a93d3421b824f1086cbb45e343ec6acf59b (tag: 2.37.0)
> >
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve this release
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> >
> >
> >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 (CR2)

[Clebert Suconic]

Just a correction, here is the correct Maven Staging repository URI:

https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1404


On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:11 AM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
>  I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 release.
>
> I would like to highlight:
>
> - We fixed an issue with compatibility between 2.31.1 and 2.32.0:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986
>
> - We introduced profiles differentiating the broker execution from
> tools on the CLI.
>
>
> For a full release notes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354977
>
>
> The git report:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.37.0
>
>
> Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.37.0
>
>
> The Maven staging repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1403
>
>
>
> If you would like to validate the release:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
>
> The release is tagged as 2.37.0 in the git repository
>
> Notice the release was retagged since CR1 failed. Please make sure you
> do git fetch --tags --force
>
> 2.37.0 is tagged as this commit:
>
> commit 0ec68a93d3421b824f1086cbb45e343ec6acf59b (tag: 2.37.0)
>
>
> [ ] +1 approve this release
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 (CR2)

[Clebert Suconic]

this is to officially record by +1 Binding vote

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:11 AM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
>  I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 release.
>
> I would like to highlight:
>
> - We fixed an issue with compatibility between 2.31.1 and 2.32.0:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986
>
> - We introduced profiles differentiating the broker execution from
> tools on the CLI.
>
>
> For a full release notes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354977
>
>
> The git report:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.37.0
>
>
> Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.37.0
>
>
> The Maven staging repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1403
>
>
>
> If you would like to validate the release:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
>
> The release is tagged as 2.37.0 in the git repository
>
> Notice the release was retagged since CR1 failed. Please make sure you
> do git fetch --tags --force
>
> 2.37.0 is tagged as this commit:
>
> commit 0ec68a93d3421b824f1086cbb45e343ec6acf59b (tag: 2.37.0)
>
>
> [ ] +1 approve this release
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 (CR2)

[Clebert Suconic]

 I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 release.

I would like to highlight:

- We fixed an issue with compatibility between 2.31.1 and 2.32.0:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986

- We introduced profiles differentiating the broker execution from
tools on the CLI.


For a full release notes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354977


The git report:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.37.0


Source and binary distributions can be found here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.37.0


The Maven staging repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1403



If you would like to validate the release:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases

The release is tagged as 2.37.0 in the git repository

Notice the release was retagged since CR1 failed. Please make sure you
do git fetch --tags --force

2.37.0 is tagged as this commit:

commit 0ec68a93d3421b824f1086cbb45e343ec6acf59b (tag: 2.37.0)


[ ] +1 approve this release
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [CANCEL] [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0

[Clebert Suconic]

False alarm. Everything is good with the rolling upgrade... It's just
my OCD wouldn't let go if anyone tells me something is wrong.


There's no point on release the same tag now.. I will just retag it
tomorrow at the tip of the branch.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 11:22 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> Lets cancel it... Let me handle this.. and I will resend the release.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 9:42 PM Clebert Suconic
>  wrote:
> >
> > -1 I'm doing some tests with rolling upgrades and the topologies are
> > not working correctly. My test worked but there's something wrong with
> > it.
> >
> >
> >
> > For now I'm just -1 ... I will investigate a bit more before I cancel
> > the release... I will let you know by tomorrow if would proceed or
> > cancel it.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 4:33 PM Clebert Suconic
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > This is Just to record my +1 binding officially..
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 4:32 PM Clebert Suconic
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 release.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to highlight:
> > > >
> > > > - We fixed an issue with compatibility between 2.31.1 and 2.32.0:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986
> > > >
> > > > - We introduced profiles differentiating the broker execution from
> > > > tools on the CLI.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For a full release notes:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354977
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The git report:
> > > > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.37.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.37.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Maven staging repository is here:
> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1403
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you would like to validate the release:
> > > > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
> > > >
> > > > The release is tagged as 2.37.0 in the git repository
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1 approve this release
> > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[CANCEL] [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0

[Clebert Suconic]

Lets cancel it... Let me handle this.. and I will resend the release.


On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 9:42 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> -1 I'm doing some tests with rolling upgrades and the topologies are
> not working correctly. My test worked but there's something wrong with
> it.
>
>
>
> For now I'm just -1 ... I will investigate a bit more before I cancel
> the release... I will let you know by tomorrow if would proceed or
> cancel it.
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 4:33 PM Clebert Suconic
>  wrote:
> >
> > This is Just to record my +1 binding officially..
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 4:32 PM Clebert Suconic
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 release.
> > >
> > > I would like to highlight:
> > >
> > > - We fixed an issue with compatibility between 2.31.1 and 2.32.0:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986
> > >
> > > - We introduced profiles differentiating the broker execution from
> > > tools on the CLI.
> > >
> > >
> > > For a full release notes:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354977
> > >
> > >
> > > The git report:
> > > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.37.0
> > >
> > >
> > > Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.37.0
> > >
> > >
> > > The Maven staging repository is here:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1403
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you would like to validate the release:
> > > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
> > >
> > > The release is tagged as 2.37.0 in the git repository
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 approve this release
> > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0

[Clebert Suconic]

-1 I'm doing some tests with rolling upgrades and the topologies are
not working correctly. My test worked but there's something wrong with
it.



For now I'm just -1 ... I will investigate a bit more before I cancel
the release... I will let you know by tomorrow if would proceed or
cancel it.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 4:33 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> This is Just to record my +1 binding officially..
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 4:32 PM Clebert Suconic
>  wrote:
> >
> > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 release.
> >
> > I would like to highlight:
> >
> > - We fixed an issue with compatibility between 2.31.1 and 2.32.0:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986
> >
> > - We introduced profiles differentiating the broker execution from
> > tools on the CLI.
> >
> >
> > For a full release notes:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354977
> >
> >
> > The git report:
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.37.0
> >
> >
> > Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.37.0
> >
> >
> > The Maven staging repository is here:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1403
> >
> >
> >
> > If you would like to validate the release:
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
> >
> > The release is tagged as 2.37.0 in the git repository
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve this release
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0

[Clebert Suconic]

This is Just to record my +1 binding officially..

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 4:32 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 release.
>
> I would like to highlight:
>
> - We fixed an issue with compatibility between 2.31.1 and 2.32.0:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986
>
> - We introduced profiles differentiating the broker execution from
> tools on the CLI.
>
>
> For a full release notes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354977
>
>
> The git report:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.37.0
>
>
> Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.37.0
>
>
> The Maven staging repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1403
>
>
>
> If you would like to validate the release:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
>
> The release is tagged as 2.37.0 in the git repository
>
> [ ] +1 approve this release
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: HEADS-UP ActiveMQ Artemis release

[Clebert Suconic]

I hadn't check your response, but I went with 2.37.0... Vote just sent

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 11:05 AM Robbie Gemmell
 wrote:
>
> I hadn't checked my emails and only just saw this.
>
> I merged https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/5136 earlier
> for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4785 and
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4702. Those changes are
> not really appropriate for a 2.36.1. I'd also say the subtask
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4702 that you merged
> previously for that same overall task isnt either. Looking at the
> wider set, there are certainly those that aren't strictly bug fixes.
>
> So I'd go with 2.37.0 as previously expected personally, or else
> branch to take those all out.
>
> Robbie
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 at 21:59, Clebert Suconic  
> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to do a release tomorrow, so I would address this issue,
> > which is a compatibility issue introduced after 2.30.0..Users may do a
> > rolling upgrade between 2.30.0 and latest versions, and this would not
> > work properly unless the following is addressed:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986?
> >
> >
> >
> > Looking at the current payload we would name it as 2.36.1 (as it seems
> > only bug fixes currently)... let me know if you object and if I should
> > rather name it 2.37.0
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> >
> >
>
> ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>


-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0

[Clebert Suconic]

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.37.0 release.

I would like to highlight:

- We fixed an issue with compatibility between 2.31.1 and 2.32.0:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986

- We introduced profiles differentiating the broker execution from
tools on the CLI.


For a full release notes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354977


The git report:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.37.0


Source and binary distributions can be found here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.37.0


The Maven staging repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1403



If you would like to validate the release:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases

The release is tagged as 2.37.0 in the git repository

[ ] +1 approve this release
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)







-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

HEADS-UP ActiveMQ Artemis release

[Clebert Suconic]

I would like to do a release tomorrow, so I would address this issue,
which is a compatibility issue introduced after 2.30.0..Users may do a
rolling upgrade between 2.30.0 and latest versions, and this would not
work properly unless the following is addressed:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4986?



Looking at the current payload we would name it as 2.36.1 (as it seems
only bug fixes currently)... let me know if you object and if I should
rather name it 2.37.0



Cheers.



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [DISCUSS] HornetQ Acceptor on default acceptor for ActiveMQ Artemis

[Clebert Suconic]

I think it's a total waste of resources to keep adding hornetq after 9
years since Artemis 1.0.0 release. We are making *everybody* to have a
default hornetq acceptor for the hypothetical one user that is still
using it and keeps upgrading every release we make. So, that's a total
inexistent case...


You're concerned about an automated script to create the release for a
hornetq older client.. if such user was that careful on automating the
upgrade from hornetq every time, why he just didn't upgrade
everything..


I think it's a total waste and non issue... I think it should be off by default.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 11:05 AM Justin Bertram  wrote:
>
> It seems pretty black & white to me. Forcing application clients to change
> their code or configuration for an upgrade is the definition of a breaking
> change. Forcing admins to change their commands or scripts to get the same
> configuration as before is also a breaking change. Am I missing something?
>
> The behavioral (and sometimes breaking) changes enumerated in versions.adoc
> for each release are about unavoidable changes resulting from fixing bugs
> or minor changes from adding new features. Those cases seem categorically
> different from this one.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:48 AM Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
>
> > @Justin Bertram I will agree to disagree with you on that one :)
> >
> > If we stick with that policy, we wouldn't be able to do anything.. we
> > have the versions.adoc for that particular reason... and we always
> > have specific instructions in there.
> >
> >
> > the 61616 acceptor will still accept hornetQ connections, you just
> > need to configure the host and port from clients..so anyone still
> > using hornetq clients can still connect to artemis with a slight URI
> > modification.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:45 AM Justin Bertram 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell, the fact that one would need to change what one was
> > > doing previously to get the same behavior technically makes this a
> > > "breaking change." We really don't know how folks are using the "create"
> > > command and how that relates to their migration or upgrade processes.
> > Also,
> > > the fact that there is a flag to disable it means that folks who really
> > > care are almost certainly disabling it already.
> > >
> > > We have a policy of no breaking changes in minor releases. I think we
> > > should stick to it regardless of how unlikely it may be that folks are
> > > using the functionality in question. I think it's good practice and helps
> > > give our users confidence in the upgrade process which is important
> > because
> > > we want them to upgrade since it makes our jobs easier.
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:11 AM Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > it's not a breaking change.. they can always do :
> > > >
> > > > ./artemis create --enable-hornetq-adapter...
> > > >
> > > > that will only affect new servers... new configurations created from
> > > > now on will not have hornetQ. if you migrate a previous configuration
> > > > with upgrade, it will still be there.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > it's been 37 versions since HornetQ (even more if you count the .
> > > > release and the 1.0 releases)... I doubt anyone would be using it at
> > > > this point. Keep adding the acceptor for HornetQ at this point it's a
> > > > waste of resources for everybody.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:52 AM Justin Bertram 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Generally speaking I agree, but I'm not sure we can make that change
> > in a
> > > > > minor release since it changed the default behavior and it's not
> > > > > technically a bug. Maybe wait until 3.0?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Justin
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 11:01 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I just realized we still create the following acceptor on every
> > server
> > > > we
> > > > > > start:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] HornetQ Acceptor on default acceptor for ActiveMQ Artemis

[Clebert Suconic]

@Justin Bertram I will agree to disagree with you on that one :)

If we stick with that policy, we wouldn't be able to do anything.. we
have the versions.adoc for that particular reason... and we always
have specific instructions in there.


the 61616 acceptor will still accept hornetQ connections, you just
need to configure the host and port from clients..so anyone still
using hornetq clients can still connect to artemis with a slight URI
modification.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:45 AM Justin Bertram  wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell, the fact that one would need to change what one was
> doing previously to get the same behavior technically makes this a
> "breaking change." We really don't know how folks are using the "create"
> command and how that relates to their migration or upgrade processes. Also,
> the fact that there is a flag to disable it means that folks who really
> care are almost certainly disabling it already.
>
> We have a policy of no breaking changes in minor releases. I think we
> should stick to it regardless of how unlikely it may be that folks are
> using the functionality in question. I think it's good practice and helps
> give our users confidence in the upgrade process which is important because
> we want them to upgrade since it makes our jobs easier.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:11 AM Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
>
> > it's not a breaking change.. they can always do :
> >
> > ./artemis create --enable-hornetq-adapter...
> >
> > that will only affect new servers... new configurations created from
> > now on will not have hornetQ. if you migrate a previous configuration
> > with upgrade, it will still be there.
> >
> >
> > it's been 37 versions since HornetQ (even more if you count the .
> > release and the 1.0 releases)... I doubt anyone would be using it at
> > this point. Keep adding the acceptor for HornetQ at this point it's a
> > waste of resources for everybody.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:52 AM Justin Bertram  wrote:
> > >
> > > Generally speaking I agree, but I'm not sure we can make that change in a
> > > minor release since it changed the default behavior and it's not
> > > technically a bug. Maybe wait until 3.0?
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 11:01 PM Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I just realized we still create the following acceptor on every server
> > we
> > > > start:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >   > > > name="hornetq">tcp://
> > > >
> > 0.0.0.0:5445?anycastPrefix=jms.queue.;multicastPrefix=jms.topic.;protocols=HORNETQ,STOMP;useEpoll=true
> > > >  > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And I think we should stop. 61616 would still respond to HornetQ
> > > > protocol. It just don't make sense (for a few. years already .. don't
> > > > know how we missed) to keep this acceptor.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think we should switch the defaults on the CLI create to have it off
> > > > by default, and add a new parameter as --enable-hornetq-acceptor.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> >
> >
> >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Classic 6.1.3 release

[Clebert Suconic]

+1 binding

On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 9:52 AM Christopher Shannon
 wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> * Validated signatures and checksums
> * Verified license and notice files in archives
> * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check'
> * Built from source and ran through several tests
> * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 1:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
>
> > IMHO there’s no problem to use project.version in BoM. A lot of projects
> > does that. We use it in Karaf BoM for a while without problem.
> >
> > Camel has a maven plugin to generate the BoM because it has to deal with a
> > lot of transitive dependencies for the components.
> > Spring is also a bit special as it uses gradle, so the BoM is also
> > statically generated.
> >
> > So camel and spring are a bit special how they create BoM (for good
> > reasons) and not necessarily the “classic” approach.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > Le sam. 3 août 2024 à 18:20, Matt Pavlovich  a écrit :
> >
> > > Hi JB-
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I believe I need to -1 on this.
> > >
> > > I believe the current best practice for bom is to have a fixed version,
> > > instead of ${project.version}.
> > >
> > > See Camel:
> > >
> > >
> > https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/camel/camel-bom/4.7.0/camel-bom-4.7.0.pom
> > >
> > > See Spring:
> > >
> > >
> > https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/spring-framework-bom/6.1.11/spring-framework-bom-6.1.11.pom
> > >
> > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > >
> > > > On Aug 2, 2024, at 1:50 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I submit Apache ActiveMQ Classic 6.1.3 release to your vote.
> > > >
> > > > This release includes 16 fixes and updates, especially:
> > > > - add a BoM
> > > > - fixes on the Message REST API, especially concurrent access
> > > > - Spring 6.1.11 update
> > > > - fix NoClassDefFound on bin/activemq export command line
> > > > - several dependency updates
> > > >
> > > > You can take a look on Release Notes for details:
> > > >
> > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12354559
> > > >
> > > > Maven Staging Repository:
> > > >
> > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1400/
> > > >
> > > > Dist Staging Repository:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/6.1.3/
> > > >
> > > > Git tag: activemq-6.1.3
> > > >
> > > > Please vote to approve this release:
> > > > [ ] +1 Approve the release
> > > > [ ] 0 I don't care
> > > > [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comment)
> > > >
> > > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Regards
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [DISCUSS] HornetQ Acceptor on default acceptor for ActiveMQ Artemis

[Clebert Suconic]

it's not a breaking change.. they can always do :

./artemis create --enable-hornetq-adapter...

that will only affect new servers... new configurations created from
now on will not have hornetQ. if you migrate a previous configuration
with upgrade, it will still be there.


it's been 37 versions since HornetQ (even more if you count the .
release and the 1.0 releases)... I doubt anyone would be using it at
this point. Keep adding the acceptor for HornetQ at this point it's a
waste of resources for everybody.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:52 AM Justin Bertram  wrote:
>
> Generally speaking I agree, but I'm not sure we can make that change in a
> minor release since it changed the default behavior and it's not
> technically a bug. Maybe wait until 3.0?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 11:01 PM Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
>
> > I just realized we still create the following acceptor on every server we
> > start:
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >   > name="hornetq">tcp://
> > 0.0.0.0:5445?anycastPrefix=jms.queue.;multicastPrefix=jms.topic.;protocols=HORNETQ,STOMP;useEpoll=true
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> > And I think we should stop. 61616 would still respond to HornetQ
> > protocol. It just don't make sense (for a few. years already .. don't
> > know how we missed) to keep this acceptor.
> >
> >
> > I think we should switch the defaults on the CLI create to have it off
> > by default, and add a new parameter as --enable-hornetq-acceptor.
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> > -----
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> >
> >
> >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[DISCUSS] HornetQ Acceptor on default acceptor for ActiveMQ Artemis

[Clebert Suconic]

I just realized we still create the following acceptor on every server we start:


 

 tcp://0.0.0.0:5445?anycastPrefix=jms.queue.;multicastPrefix=jms.topic.;protocols=HORNETQ,STOMP;useEpoll=truehttps://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [VOTE]Apache ActiveMQ Artemis mq channel improvement for speed and reliability of the mq message

[Clebert Suconic]

You’re having some basic communication problems here.


First. Why use the vote thread to ask a question about this.


Second: it seems you’re mixing the file NIo channel with the Netty NIO
channel.  You didn’t state what is the problem and how your fix is
achieving to fix the issue you saw.   I tried to read your document and I
couldn’t figure out.


So let’s start over.  Please open a new thread with the proper subject.

Second. State your problem.  What is the issue you see and how to reproduce
it.

What is the fix your are proposing here


Thank you.

Clebert Suconic


On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 10:07 PM Koteswararao Gundapaneni <
apache.tomcat.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 5:33 AM Koteswararao Gundapaneni <
> > apache.tomcat.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > HI Team,
> > >
> > > Please find the nio channel improvement for active mq
> > >
> > > Please post if any queries
> > >
> > > Thanks & Regards
> >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.36.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

You are using the release thread to discuss something (that I actually have
a few questions)


Can you start a new thread please.  Stating what is the issue you are
trying to fix ?

Clebert Suconic


On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 5:33 AM Koteswararao Gundapaneni <
apache.tomcat.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

> HI Team,
>
> Please find the nio channel improvement for active mq
>
> Please post if any queries
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Koti
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 9:24 PM Koteswararao Gundapaneni <
> apache.tomcat.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Team
>>
>>
>>
>> How do we improve the stability of NIO channel
>>
>> Let me come up with design document
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Jul 2024, 05:31 Clebert Suconic, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.36.0 release.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to highlight the following:
>>>
>>> * Numerous dependency upgrades triggered by integration with GitHub's
>>> Dependabot.
>>> * Stability improvement for use-cases involving slower IO devices
>>> (e.g. NFS) and the NIO journal via
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4949
>>> * Code optimization in the address manager to decrease CPU utilization
>>> and increase broker scalability for use-cases involving a large number
>>> of addresses and queues courtesy of
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4814
>>> * Stability improvement for use-cases involving STOMP clients
>>> connecting over WebSockets via
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3509.
>>> * Lots of internal "code gardening" improvements for developers to
>>> make the code-base simpler and more consistent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=
>>> &projectId=12315920
>>>
>>>
>>> Ths git commit report is here:
>>>
>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.36.0
>>>
>>>
>>> Source and binary distributions can be found here:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.36.0
>>>
>>>
>>> The Maven staging repository is here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1399
>>>
>>>
>>> If you would like to validate the release:
>>>
>>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
>>>
>>>
>>> It is tagged in the git repo as  2.36.0
>>>
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 approve this release
>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
>>> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>>>
>>>
>>>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.36.0 released

[Clebert Suconic]

I'm pleased to announce the release of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.36.0 release

Downloads are now available at:

https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/


For a complete list of updates:

https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/release-notes-2.36.0



I would like to highlight:

• Numerous dependency upgrades triggered by integration with GitHub’s
Dependabot.
• Stability improvement for use-cases involving slower IO devices
(e.g. NFS) and the NIO journal via ARTEMIS-4949.
• Code optimization in the address manager to decrease CPU utilization
and increase broker scalability for use-cases involving a large number
of addresses and queues courtesy of ARTEMIS-4814.
• Stability improvement for use-cases involving STOMP clients
connecting over WebSockets via ARTEMIS-3509.
• Lots of internal "code gardening" improvements for developers to
make the code-base simpler and more consistent.



Many thanks for all the contributors to this release.


-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.36.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

The vote passed with 5 Binding votes


The following votes were received:

Clebert Suconic
Domenico Francesco Bruscino
JB Onofre
Timothy Bish
Robbie Gemmel

Thanks everybody for taking the time on this release, for all the
contributions and the time spent evaluating the Candidate Release.


I will upload everything and send the announcement when everything is synced up.


thanks again





On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 8:00 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.36.0 release.
>
>
> I would like to highlight the following:
>
> * Numerous dependency upgrades triggered by integration with GitHub's
> Dependabot.
> * Stability improvement for use-cases involving slower IO devices
> (e.g. NFS) and the NIO journal via
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4949
> * Code optimization in the address manager to decrease CPU utilization
> and increase broker scalability for use-cases involving a large number
> of addresses and queues courtesy of
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4814
> * Stability improvement for use-cases involving STOMP clients
> connecting over WebSockets via
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3509.
> * Lots of internal "code gardening" improvements for developers to
> make the code-base simpler and more consistent.
>
>
>
> The release notes can be found here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=&projectId=12315920
>
>
> Ths git commit report is here:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.36.0
>
>
> Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.36.0
>
>
> The Maven staging repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1399
>
>
> If you would like to validate the release:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
>
>
> It is tagged in the git repo as  2.36.0
>
>
> [ ] +1 approve this release
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.36.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

this is to officially record my +1 binding record

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 8:00 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.36.0 release.
>
>
> I would like to highlight the following:
>
> * Numerous dependency upgrades triggered by integration with GitHub's
> Dependabot.
> * Stability improvement for use-cases involving slower IO devices
> (e.g. NFS) and the NIO journal via
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4949
> * Code optimization in the address manager to decrease CPU utilization
> and increase broker scalability for use-cases involving a large number
> of addresses and queues courtesy of
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4814
> * Stability improvement for use-cases involving STOMP clients
> connecting over WebSockets via
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3509.
> * Lots of internal "code gardening" improvements for developers to
> make the code-base simpler and more consistent.
>
>
>
> The release notes can be found here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=&projectId=12315920
>
>
> Ths git commit report is here:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.36.0
>
>
> Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.36.0
>
>
> The Maven staging repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1399
>
>
> If you would like to validate the release:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
>
>
> It is tagged in the git repo as  2.36.0
>
>
> [ ] +1 approve this release
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.36.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.36.0 release.


I would like to highlight the following:

* Numerous dependency upgrades triggered by integration with GitHub's
Dependabot.
* Stability improvement for use-cases involving slower IO devices
(e.g. NFS) and the NIO journal via
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4949
* Code optimization in the address manager to decrease CPU utilization
and increase broker scalability for use-cases involving a large number
of addresses and queues courtesy of
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4814
* Stability improvement for use-cases involving STOMP clients
connecting over WebSockets via
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3509.
* Lots of internal "code gardening" improvements for developers to
make the code-base simpler and more consistent.



The release notes can be found here:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=&projectId=12315920


Ths git commit report is here:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.36.0


Source and binary distributions can be found here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.36.0


The Maven staging repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1399


If you would like to validate the release:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases


It is tagged in the git repo as  2.36.0


[ ] +1 approve this release
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 5.18.5 release

[Clebert Suconic]

just for the record, I downloaded the binary, and run a couple of
producers and consumers in AMQP.

+1 binding from me

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 4:10 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:17 AM Timothy Bish  wrote:
> >
> > On 7/20/24 03:28, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I submit Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 5.18.5 release to your vote.
> > >
> > > This release includes 20 fixes and updates, especially:
> > > - fixes on the Message REST API
> > > - fix ClassNotFoundException on the runtimeConfigurationPlugin
> > > - Spring 5.3.37 update fixing CVE-2024-22262
> > > - fix NoClassDefFound on bin/activemq export command line
> > > - several dependency updates
> > >
> > > You can take a look on Release Notes for details:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12354398
> > >
> > > Maven Staging Repository:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1398/
> > >
> > > Dist Staging Repository:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/5.18.5/
> > >
> > > Git tag: activemq-5.18.5
> > >
> > > Please vote to approve this release:
> > > [ ] +1 Approve the release
> > > [ ] 0 I don't care
> > > [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comment)
> > >
> > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> > >
> > >
> > +1
> >
> > * Validated signatures and checksums
> > * Verified license and notice files in archives
> > * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check'
> > * Ran binary install and checked web console works
> > * Ran some AMQP client examples against the running broker install
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bish
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 5.18.5 release

[Clebert Suconic]

+1


On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:17 AM Timothy Bish  wrote:
>
> On 7/20/24 03:28, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I submit Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 5.18.5 release to your vote.
> >
> > This release includes 20 fixes and updates, especially:
> > - fixes on the Message REST API
> > - fix ClassNotFoundException on the runtimeConfigurationPlugin
> > - Spring 5.3.37 update fixing CVE-2024-22262
> > - fix NoClassDefFound on bin/activemq export command line
> > - several dependency updates
> >
> > You can take a look on Release Notes for details:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12354398
> >
> > Maven Staging Repository:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1398/
> >
> > Dist Staging Repository:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/5.18.5/
> >
> > Git tag: activemq-5.18.5
> >
> > Please vote to approve this release:
> > [ ] +1 Approve the release
> > [ ] 0 I don't care
> > [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comment)
> >
> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> >
> >
> +1
>
> * Validated signatures and checksums
> * Verified license and notice files in archives
> * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check'
> * Ran binary install and checked web console works
> * Ran some AMQP client examples against the running broker install
>
> --
> Tim Bish
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>


-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release tomorrow

[Clebert Suconic]

I'm thinking about cutting a release tomorrow. Anyone have anything
that would push it back?

-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [HEADS-UP] Maven version enforcements on 3.9.3+ for ActiveMQ Artemis

[Clebert Suconic]

Ok.  That’s nice.


I will upgrade my maven just in case.


I would still like to use a higher version in next releases to prevent
issues .  Don’t know yet if we should enforce it.  Will think about it.
And if anyone has any opinion let us know ?

Clebert Suconic


On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 1:45 PM Robbie Gemmell 
wrote:

> I reworked the artemis-commons module pom so that the pom output by
> the shade plugin is the same regardless which of the maven versions or
> profile combinations was in use, versus 3.8.x having 3 different
> possible outputs previously (tested 4 variants before/after with both
> 3.8.7 and 3.9.4 specifically). So we shouldnt need to consider
> enforcing a higher version [for this reason] now.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4822
>
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 17:10, Robbie Gemmell 
> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking into why the artemis-commons pom seemed to not be
> > reproducible in the recent releases, since I previously did some work
> > to get it reproducible some months ago for a completely different
> > issue.
> >
> > I was eventually able to piece together that use of Maven 3.9.2+ (I
> > was on 3.9.4 at the start, whilst reproducible-central was using
> > 3.9.3), coupled with whether the release profile is active or not,
> > explained the slight difference from what is on central for 2.34.0 and
> > which was published with 3.8.x
> >
> > I suggested that Clebert upgrade locally to 3.9.3+ (from looking at
> > the release notes) to do future releases. He suggested just enforcing
> > that as minimum maven version in the release profile, which I said we
> > could (we already enforce a lower minimum version I believe), but
> > should give a heads up first since it might trip up other folks still
> > on older versions as he originally was.
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 16:59, Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > So... I was thinking about eventually enforcing 3.9.3+ as we talked
> > > about... but that might break people's CI...
> > >
> > > For now we recommend using 3.9.3 on releasing, but we may add an
> enforcer rule.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:58 AM Clebert Suconic
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you are release ActiveMQ Artemis, please use Maven 3.9.3+ as it
> > > > improves reproducibility of the release. There are some minor issues
> > > > with the way artemis commons is built (shading) and having 3.9.3+
> > > > during the release would improve its reproducibility. (I don't take
> it
> > > > as a major issue but it's better to upgrade... ).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was talking "in person" with Robbie Gemmel about this and he might
> > > > have more context about it.
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> > >
> > >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>
>

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.35.0 Released

[Clebert Suconic]

I'm pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.35.0


Downloads are now available at:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/


For a complete list of updates:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/release-notes-2.35.0


Many thanks for all the contributors to this release.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [HEADS-UP] Maven version enforcements on 3.9.3+ for ActiveMQ Artemis

[Clebert Suconic]

So... I was thinking about eventually enforcing 3.9.3+ as we talked
about... but that might break people's CI...

For now we recommend using 3.9.3 on releasing, but we may add an enforcer rule.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:58 AM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> If you are release ActiveMQ Artemis, please use Maven 3.9.3+ as it
> improves reproducibility of the release. There are some minor issues
> with the way artemis commons is built (shading) and having 3.9.3+
> during the release would improve its reproducibility. (I don't take it
> as a major issue but it's better to upgrade... ).
>
>
> I was talking "in person" with Robbie Gemmel about this and he might
> have more context about it.
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[HEADS-UP] Maven version enforcements on 3.9.3+ for ActiveMQ Artemis

[Clebert Suconic]

If you are release ActiveMQ Artemis, please use Maven 3.9.3+ as it
improves reproducibility of the release. There are some minor issues
with the way artemis commons is built (shading) and having 3.9.3+
during the release would improve its reproducibility. (I don't take it
as a major issue but it's better to upgrade... ).


I was talking "in person" with Robbie Gemmel about this and he might
have more context about it.
-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.35.0

[Clebert Suconic]

The Vote has passed with 5 binding votes.


Clebert Suconic
Timothy Bish
Arthyr Naseef
Justin Bertram
Krysztof (Havret)


I will update the website and send the announcement as soon as it's ready


Thank you all for your time on evaluating this Candidate Release.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 5:22 PM Havret  wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> I've run the tests against ArtemisNetClient[1] 2.17.0-preview2 and
> ArtemisNetCoreClient 1.0.0-alpha.1[2]. It's all green.
>
> To make the testing easier, I've created a docker image[3] with the release
> candidate binaries. Feel free to use it to run your tests.
>
> Cheers,
> Krzysztof
>
> [1] https://github.com/Havret/dotnet-activemq-artemis-client/pull/496
> [2] https://github.com/Havret/dotnet-activemq-artemis-core-client/pull/132
> [3] docker pull havret/dotnet-activemq-artemis-client-test-broker:2.35.0-rc1
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 9:58 PM Justin Bertram  wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 11:43 AM Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.35.0 release.
> > >
> > > I would like to highlight the following changes:
> > >
> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4813 In a rare race,
> > > Large messages that were partially sent before the broker started to
> > > replicate could become damage and part of the body be missed.
> > >
> > > - The codebase now uses JUNIT5 for testing.
> > >
> > >
> > > There are as usual other bug fixes, and can see them in the full release
> > > notes:
> > >
> > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354784
> > >
> > >
> > > The git report can be found here:
> > >
> > >
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.35.0
> > >
> > >
> > > Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.35.0
> > >
> > > The Maven staging repository is here:
> > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1397
> > >
> > > If you would like to validate the release:
> > >
> > >
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
> > >
> > >
> > > It is tagged in the git repo as 2.35.0:
> > >
> > > I would appreciate your VOTE and tryouts on this candidate release:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 approve this release
> > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
> > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: Shared Durable Subscription Problem.

[Clebert Suconic]

something is trying to remove a queue, but it's not allowing it
because it had consumers.

Post the whole stack trace..



You should have used us...@activemq.apache.org though.


Also you didn't provide much information about what's happening...
I'm providing you an answer based on the little you posted.

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:09 AM Tony Lewis  wrote:
>
> I am having a problem with an MDB running on Wildfly 26.1.3. Artemis 2.33.
>
>
> This is the configuration for the MDB:
>
>
> @MessageDriven(activationConfig={
>
> @ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName="destinationLookup",  
> propertyValue="java:global/remoteContext/dataChannel")
>
> ,@ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName="destinationType", 
> propertyValue="javax.jms.Topic")
>
> ,@ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName="subscriptionDurability", 
> propertyValue ="Durable")
>
> ,@ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName="subscriptionName", 
> propertyValue="DataProcessor")
>
> ,@ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName = "shareSubscriptions", 
> propertyValue="true")
>
>
>
>
> And this is the broker.xml for artemis:
>
>
>  
>
> DLQ
>
> ExpiryQueue
>
> -1
>
> 1
>
> 10
>
> 1.5
>
> 
>
> -1
>
> 
> 10
>
> PAGE
>
> true
>
> true
>
> true
>
> true
>
>  
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>true
>
>  
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> This is the wildfly log on start up:
>
> ```
>
> 2024-06-13 13:31:17,442 ERROR 
> [org.apache.activemq.artemis.ra.ActiveMQRALogger] (default-threads - 1) 
> AMQ154003: Unable to reconnect 
> org.apache.activemq.artemis.ra.inflow.ActiveMQActivationSpec(ra=org.wildfly.extension.messaging.activemq.ActiveMQResourceAdapter@e45ad389
>  destination=java:global/remoteContext/dataChannel 
> destinationType=javax.jms.Topic ack=Auto-acknowledge durable=true 
> clientID=null subscription=DataProcessor user=null maxSession=15): 
> ActiveMQIllegalStateException[errorType=ILLEGAL_STATE message=AMQ229025: 
> Cannot delete queue DataProcessor on binding DataProcessor - it has consumers 
> = org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.postoffice.impl.LocalQueueBinding]
>
> ```
>
>
> This identical code worked in Wildly 18 and Artemis 2.17.
>
> I have tried just about every combination that I can think of, but I think 
> I'm at my wit's end.
>
> If anyone can give me a hand here, I would greatly appreciate it.
>
>


-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.35.0

[Clebert Suconic]

This is to officially record my Binding Vote:

+1 (Binding)

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:36 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.35.0 release.
>
> I would like to highlight the following changes:
>
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4813 In a rare race,
> Large messages that were partially sent before the broker started to
> replicate could become damage and part of the body be missed.
>
> - The codebase now uses JUNIT5 for testing.
>
>
> There are as usual other bug fixes, and can see them in the full release 
> notes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354784
>
>
> The git report can be found here:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.35.0
>
>
> Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.35.0
>
> The Maven staging repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1397
>
> If you would like to validate the release:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
>
>
> It is tagged in the git repo as 2.35.0:
>
> I would appreciate your VOTE and tryouts on this candidate release:
>
> [ ] +1 approve this release
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.35.0

[Clebert Suconic]

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.35.0 release.

I would like to highlight the following changes:

- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4813 In a rare race,
Large messages that were partially sent before the broker started to
replicate could become damage and part of the body be missed.

- The codebase now uses JUNIT5 for testing.


There are as usual other bug fixes, and can see them in the full release notes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354784


The git report can be found here:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.35.0


Source and binary distributions can be found here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.35.0

The Maven staging repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1397

If you would like to validate the release:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases


It is tagged in the git repo as 2.35.0:

I would appreciate your VOTE and tryouts on this candidate release:

[ ] +1 approve this release
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release

[Clebert Suconic]

I will start a release tomorrow on ActiveMQ Artemis, because of a
regression I just found:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4813


I will name this release 2.35.0...

the biggest change in the codebase is the JUNIT upgrade, as for
everything else is a bug fix only...


There's also some API changes...


I'm not going to hold beyond tomorrow as I want to have this fix out
of the door as soon as possible.



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

Just wanted to apologize... I didn't mention Tim Bish's name on the result.

Sorry Tim, I always appreciate your input during releases and I saw
your work on this.. It was a clerical error.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 11:14 AM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> The Vote has passed with 8 Votes (7 PMC + 1 Committer)
>
> PMC Votes (Binding)
> Clebert Suconic
> JB Onofre
> Justin Bertram
> Gary Tully
> Domenico Bruscino
> Havret (Krzysztof)
> Christopher shannon
>
> Commiter Votes (Non Binding)
> Anton Roskvist
>
>
>
> Thank you all for your time evaluating this release.
>
> i will go ahead and deploy the release on the website. I will post an
> announce when everything is ready.
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 4:02 PM Havret  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've re-evaluated the process since it's been a while since I last built an
> > Artemis Docker image. It appears that I used the incorrect command.
> > Initially, I used:
> >
> > docker build -t
> > havret/dotnet-activemq-artemis-client-test-broker:2.34.0-rc1 .
> >
> > Instead of the correct:
> >
> > docker buildx build --platform linux/amd64,linux/arm64 -t
> > havret/dotnet-activemq-artemis-client-test-broker:2.34.0-rc1 --push .
> >
> > As a result, I was running the broker in Docker via emulation on my M1
> > chip. With the proper arm64 build, it stopped crashing.
> >
> > I apologize for any confusion caused and for the premature concern.
> >
> > I would like to reinstate my "+1 (binding)" vote.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Krzysztof
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 9:35 PM Clebert Suconic 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not necessarily an issue.
> > >
> > > I for instance increased the possible throughout of paging by
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4773
> > >
> > > if you don't configure the max-read-pages while fetching from page you
> > > might endup with more messages than you can handle in memory.
> > >
> > >
> > > The VM should be issuing an OME on that case.. but a crash / core dump is
> > > definitely not a broker issue.
> > >
> > > try including max-read-page-messages to 2000 and prefetch-page-messages to
> > > 100 and tell me the results.
> > >
> > >
> > > I do test adding millions of messages on the broker by some of the soak
> > > tests I added (I can tweak numbers) and it's definitely not an issue.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you reproduce the issue and provide me info I can check better.
> > >
> > >
> > > Clebert Suconic
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 6:40 AM Havret  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Clebert, Justin,
> > > >
> > > > I've checked the previous version (2.33.0), as Justin suggested, and 
> > > > it's
> > > > working fine. However, with the current release candidate, it keeps
> > > > crashing every single time on a simple throughput benchmark (I'm sending
> > > > 100k messages with 1KB of payload each). This issue occurs with both 
> > > > AMQP
> > > > and CORE protocols.
> > > >
> > > > Having said that, I'm changing my vote to:
> > > >
> > > > -1 (binding)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Krzysztof
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 07:07 Clebert Suconic 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would take it separately from the Vote thread" I don't see anything
> > > > > wrong with the release itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > if you could start a separate thread about the issue, how to reproduce
> > > > > it. When it started to fail? configurations.. etc?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > this error here:
> > > > > G1ParScanThreadState::copy_to_survivor_space(G1HeapRegionAttr,
> > > oopDesc*,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggests me it's a memory issue? I would start by looking at paging
> > > > > and its configurations? but lets do that on a separate thread?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:54 PM Havret  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just noticed that when I run my performance benchmark against
> > > version
> > > > > > 2.34.0, it crashes with th

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

I'm pleased to announce the release of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release.


Downloads are now available at:

https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/


For a complete list of updates:

https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/release-notes-2.34.0



Also the docker image has been built and you should be able to run it
from the registry already (Thanks Justin Bertram for uploading it).


Many thanks for all the contributions on this release.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[RESULT][VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

The Vote has passed with 8 Votes (7 PMC + 1 Committer)

PMC Votes (Binding)
Clebert Suconic
JB Onofre
Justin Bertram
Gary Tully
Domenico Bruscino
Havret (Krzysztof)
Christopher shannon

Commiter Votes (Non Binding)
Anton Roskvist



Thank you all for your time evaluating this release.

i will go ahead and deploy the release on the website. I will post an
announce when everything is ready.

On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 4:02 PM Havret  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've re-evaluated the process since it's been a while since I last built an
> Artemis Docker image. It appears that I used the incorrect command.
> Initially, I used:
>
> docker build -t
> havret/dotnet-activemq-artemis-client-test-broker:2.34.0-rc1 .
>
> Instead of the correct:
>
> docker buildx build --platform linux/amd64,linux/arm64 -t
> havret/dotnet-activemq-artemis-client-test-broker:2.34.0-rc1 --push .
>
> As a result, I was running the broker in Docker via emulation on my M1
> chip. With the proper arm64 build, it stopped crashing.
>
> I apologize for any confusion caused and for the premature concern.
>
> I would like to reinstate my "+1 (binding)" vote.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Krzysztof
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 9:35 PM Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
>
> > Not necessarily an issue.
> >
> > I for instance increased the possible throughout of paging by
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4773
> >
> > if you don't configure the max-read-pages while fetching from page you
> > might endup with more messages than you can handle in memory.
> >
> >
> > The VM should be issuing an OME on that case.. but a crash / core dump is
> > definitely not a broker issue.
> >
> > try including max-read-page-messages to 2000 and prefetch-page-messages to
> > 100 and tell me the results.
> >
> >
> > I do test adding millions of messages on the broker by some of the soak
> > tests I added (I can tweak numbers) and it's definitely not an issue.
> >
> >
> > If you reproduce the issue and provide me info I can check better.
> >
> >
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 6:40 AM Havret  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Clebert, Justin,
> > >
> > > I've checked the previous version (2.33.0), as Justin suggested, and it's
> > > working fine. However, with the current release candidate, it keeps
> > > crashing every single time on a simple throughput benchmark (I'm sending
> > > 100k messages with 1KB of payload each). This issue occurs with both AMQP
> > > and CORE protocols.
> > >
> > > Having said that, I'm changing my vote to:
> > >
> > > -1 (binding)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Krzysztof
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 07:07 Clebert Suconic 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would take it separately from the Vote thread" I don't see anything
> > > > wrong with the release itself.
> > > >
> > > > if you could start a separate thread about the issue, how to reproduce
> > > > it. When it started to fail? configurations.. etc?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > this error here:
> > > > G1ParScanThreadState::copy_to_survivor_space(G1HeapRegionAttr,
> > oopDesc*,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Suggests me it's a memory issue? I would start by looking at paging
> > > > and its configurations? but lets do that on a separate thread?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:54 PM Havret  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I just noticed that when I run my performance benchmark against
> > version
> > > > > 2.34.0, it crashes with the following error:
> > > > >
> > > > > activemq-artemis  | [thread 14 also had an error]
> > > > > activemq-artemis  | #
> > > > > activemq-artemis  | # A fatal error has been detected by the Java
> > > Runtime
> > > > > Environment:
> > > > > activemq-artemis  | #
> > > > > activemq-artemis  | #  SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x7e73b0d3, pid=1,
> > > > tid=37
> > > > > activemq-artemis  | #
> > > > > activemq-artemis  | # JRE version: OpenJDK Runtime Environment
> > > > > Zulu14.29+23-CA (14.0.2+12) (build 14.0.2+12)
> > > > > activemq-artemis  | # Java VM: OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM
> > Zulu14.29+23-CA
> > > > > (14.0.2+12, mixed mode, sharing, tiered, compr

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

Not necessarily an issue.

I for instance increased the possible throughout of paging by
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4773

if you don't configure the max-read-pages while fetching from page you
might endup with more messages than you can handle in memory.


The VM should be issuing an OME on that case.. but a crash / core dump is
definitely not a broker issue.

try including max-read-page-messages to 2000 and prefetch-page-messages to
100 and tell me the results.


I do test adding millions of messages on the broker by some of the soak
tests I added (I can tweak numbers) and it's definitely not an issue.


If you reproduce the issue and provide me info I can check better.


Clebert Suconic


On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 6:40 AM Havret  wrote:

> Hi Clebert, Justin,
>
> I've checked the previous version (2.33.0), as Justin suggested, and it's
> working fine. However, with the current release candidate, it keeps
> crashing every single time on a simple throughput benchmark (I'm sending
> 100k messages with 1KB of payload each). This issue occurs with both AMQP
> and CORE protocols.
>
> Having said that, I'm changing my vote to:
>
> -1 (binding)
>
> Thanks,
> Krzysztof
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 07:07 Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
>
> > I would take it separately from the Vote thread" I don't see anything
> > wrong with the release itself.
> >
> > if you could start a separate thread about the issue, how to reproduce
> > it. When it started to fail? configurations.. etc?
> >
> >
> > this error here:
> > G1ParScanThreadState::copy_to_survivor_space(G1HeapRegionAttr, oopDesc*,
> >
> >
> > Suggests me it's a memory issue? I would start by looking at paging
> > and its configurations? but lets do that on a separate thread?
> >
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:54 PM Havret  wrote:
> > >
> > > I just noticed that when I run my performance benchmark against version
> > > 2.34.0, it crashes with the following error:
> > >
> > > activemq-artemis  | [thread 14 also had an error]
> > > activemq-artemis  | #
> > > activemq-artemis  | # A fatal error has been detected by the Java
> Runtime
> > > Environment:
> > > activemq-artemis  | #
> > > activemq-artemis  | #  SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x7e73b0d3, pid=1,
> > tid=37
> > > activemq-artemis  | #
> > > activemq-artemis  | # JRE version: OpenJDK Runtime Environment
> > > Zulu14.29+23-CA (14.0.2+12) (build 14.0.2+12)
> > > activemq-artemis  | # Java VM: OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Zulu14.29+23-CA
> > > (14.0.2+12, mixed mode, sharing, tiered, compressed oops, g1 gc,
> > > linux-amd64)
> > > activemq-artemis  | # Problematic frame:
> > > activemq-artemis  | # V  [libjvm.so+0x6ee0d3][thread 40 also had an
> > error]
> > > activemq-artemis  | [thread 36 also had an error]
> > > activemq-artemis  | [thread 39 also had an error]
> > > activemq-artemis  | [thread 34 also had an error]
> > > activemq-artemis  | [thread 33 also had an error]
> > > activemq-artemis  | [thread 35 also had an error]
> > > activemq-artemis  | [thread 38 also had an error]
> > > activemq-artemis  |
> > > G1ParScanThreadState::copy_to_survivor_space(G1HeapRegionAttr,
> oopDesc*,
> > > markWord)+0x283
> > > activemq-artemis  | #
> > > activemq-artemis  | # No core dump will be written. Core dumps have
> been
> > > disabled. To enable core dumping, try "ulimit -c unlimited" before
> > starting
> > > Java again
> > > activemq-artemis  | #
> > > activemq-artemis  | # An error report file with more information is
> saved
> > > as:
> > > activemq-artemis  | # /artemis/hs_err_pid1.log
> > > activemq-artemis  | #
> > > activemq-artemis  | # If you would like to submit a bug report, please
> > > visit:
> > > activemq-artemis  | #   http://www.azulsystems.com/support/
> > > activemq-artemis  | #
> > >
> > > With 2.30.0 It's working fine.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Krzysztof
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:16 PM Havret  wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 (binding)
> > > >
> > > > I've run the tests against ArtemisNetClient[1] 2.12.0 and
> > > > ArtemisNetCoreClient 1.0.0-alpha.1[2]. It's all green.
> > > >
> > > > To make the testing easier, I've created a docker image[3] with the
> > > > release candidate binaries. Feel free to use it to run your 

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

I would take it separately from the Vote thread" I don't see anything
wrong with the release itself.

if you could start a separate thread about the issue, how to reproduce
it. When it started to fail? configurations.. etc?


this error here:
G1ParScanThreadState::copy_to_survivor_space(G1HeapRegionAttr, oopDesc*,


Suggests me it's a memory issue? I would start by looking at paging
and its configurations? but lets do that on a separate thread?

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:54 PM Havret  wrote:
>
> I just noticed that when I run my performance benchmark against version
> 2.34.0, it crashes with the following error:
>
> activemq-artemis  | [thread 14 also had an error]
> activemq-artemis  | #
> activemq-artemis  | # A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime
> Environment:
> activemq-artemis  | #
> activemq-artemis  | #  SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x7e73b0d3, pid=1, tid=37
> activemq-artemis  | #
> activemq-artemis  | # JRE version: OpenJDK Runtime Environment
> Zulu14.29+23-CA (14.0.2+12) (build 14.0.2+12)
> activemq-artemis  | # Java VM: OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Zulu14.29+23-CA
> (14.0.2+12, mixed mode, sharing, tiered, compressed oops, g1 gc,
> linux-amd64)
> activemq-artemis  | # Problematic frame:
> activemq-artemis  | # V  [libjvm.so+0x6ee0d3][thread 40 also had an error]
> activemq-artemis  | [thread 36 also had an error]
> activemq-artemis  | [thread 39 also had an error]
> activemq-artemis  | [thread 34 also had an error]
> activemq-artemis  | [thread 33 also had an error]
> activemq-artemis  | [thread 35 also had an error]
> activemq-artemis  | [thread 38 also had an error]
> activemq-artemis  |
> G1ParScanThreadState::copy_to_survivor_space(G1HeapRegionAttr, oopDesc*,
> markWord)+0x283
> activemq-artemis  | #
> activemq-artemis  | # No core dump will be written. Core dumps have been
> disabled. To enable core dumping, try "ulimit -c unlimited" before starting
> Java again
> activemq-artemis  | #
> activemq-artemis  | # An error report file with more information is saved
> as:
> activemq-artemis  | # /artemis/hs_err_pid1.log
> activemq-artemis  | #
> activemq-artemis  | # If you would like to submit a bug report, please
> visit:
> activemq-artemis  | #   http://www.azulsystems.com/support/
> activemq-artemis  | #
>
> With 2.30.0 It's working fine.
>
> Thanks,
> Krzysztof
>
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:16 PM Havret  wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > I've run the tests against ArtemisNetClient[1] 2.12.0 and
> > ArtemisNetCoreClient 1.0.0-alpha.1[2]. It's all green.
> >
> > To make the testing easier, I've created a docker image[3] with the
> > release candidate binaries. Feel free to use it to run your tests.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Krzysztof
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/Havret/dotnet-activemq-artemis-client/pull/490
> > [2] https://github.com/Havret/dotnet-activemq-artemis-core-client/pull/115
> > [3] docker pull
> > havret/dotnet-activemq-artemis-client-test-broker:2.34.0-rc1
> >
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:56 PM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (binding)
> >>
> >> * Checked parent version in pom.xml files using `grep -LPrz --include
> >> pom.xml "(.|\n)*2.34.0<\/version>(.|\n)*<\/parent>" ./`
> >> * Ran binary broker instance on Fedora 38 using OpenJDK 17
> >> * Checked the web console using `Google Chrome`
> >> * Checked producing, browsing and consuming messages from a queue using
> >> `artemis check queue --name TEST --produce 1000 --browse 1000 --consume
> >> 1000`
> >>
> >> Connection brokerURL = tcp://localhost:61616
> >> Running QueueCheck
> >> Checking that a producer can send 1000 messages to the queue TEST ...
> >> success
> >> Checking that a consumer can browse 1000 messages from the queue TEST ...
> >> success
> >> Checking that a consumer can consume 1000 messages from the queue TEST ...
> >> success
> >> Checks run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2.842 sec
> >> - QueueCheck
> >>
> >> On Wed, 29 May 2024 at 19:43, Clebert Suconic 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I would like to highlight the following improvements as part of this
> >> > release:
> >> >
> >> > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4758 - Extensive
> >> > resiliency tests and hardening on Mirroring.
> >

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

just to record my +1 Binding officially.

also there was a typo on my highlights (Statistics instead of
Statics).. I will upload the doc with the updated version on the
website. No need to respin the release for this.

The release is still valid...

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 1:42 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release.
>
>
> I would like to highlight the following improvements as part of this release:
>
> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4758 - Extensive
> resiliency tests and hardening on Mirroring.
> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4773 - Paging
> performance improvements on sync.
> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4306 - Statics about
> security events
> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4675 - Replication
> status metrics
>
>
> For a full release notes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354426
>
> The commit report:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.34.0
>
> Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.34.0/
>
>
> The Maven staged repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1396
>
> If you would like to validate the release:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
>
>
> It is tagged in the git repo as 2.34.0
>
> If you could please vote as usually:
>
> [ ] +1 approve this release
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

[VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release

[Clebert Suconic]

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release.


I would like to highlight the following improvements as part of this release:

* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4758 - Extensive
resiliency tests and hardening on Mirroring.
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4773 - Paging
performance improvements on sync.
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4306 - Statics about
security events
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4675 - Replication
status metrics


For a full release notes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354426

The commit report:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.34.0

Source and binary distributions can be found here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.34.0/


The Maven staged repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1396

If you would like to validate the release:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases


It is tagged in the git repo as 2.34.0

If you could please vote as usually:

[ ] +1 approve this release
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 Release

[Clebert Suconic]

I am proceeding with the release.

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:09 AM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> Can I do a release? Does anyone have any issues?
>
> I work with Robbie Gemmel (not on the same desk, but I work remotely
> close to him). and I'm not going to pretend I didn't talk to him,  and
> he mentioned an issue with Federation Shutdown.. I think that one can
> be postponed
>
> Can we do a release now? Should we wait for the fix?
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 1:50 PM Clebert Suconic
>  wrote:
> >
> > as usual I don't keep my promises :)
> >
> > I didn't do it for personal conflicts.. but I'm going to do it as soon
> > as personal agenda clears up in the next few days.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 10:08 PM Clebert Suconic
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to start / tag a release on Friday, April 26th.
> > >
> > > If any concerns or tasks that you would like to get included please
> > > let me know here,  (if you could also include me with a tag on a
> > > github PR that would help me).
> > >
> > >
> > > This release will address a few recent and important fixes, so I think
> > > it's time for a new release now.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 Release

[Clebert Suconic]

Can I do a release? Does anyone have any issues?

I work with Robbie Gemmel (not on the same desk, but I work remotely
close to him). and I'm not going to pretend I didn't talk to him,  and
he mentioned an issue with Federation Shutdown.. I think that one can
be postponed

Can we do a release now? Should we wait for the fix?

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 1:50 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> as usual I don't keep my promises :)
>
> I didn't do it for personal conflicts.. but I'm going to do it as soon
> as personal agenda clears up in the next few days.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 10:08 PM Clebert Suconic
>  wrote:
> >
> > I would like to start / tag a release on Friday, April 26th.
> >
> > If any concerns or tasks that you would like to get included please
> > let me know here,  (if you could also include me with a tag on a
> > github PR that would help me).
> >
> >
> > This release will address a few recent and important fixes, so I think
> > it's time for a new release now.
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Re: Announce: Unsubscribe links on our mail lists

[Clebert Suconic]

I don't get to see my own emails. so I don't know if the issue was
complete or not. if someone could please confirm there's an
unsubscribe on the emails sent by the lists now?

Thank you.

On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 7:23 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> This will serve as an announce and as a test:
>
>
> As a result from
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-25799 and our vote, from now on 
> our mail lists will include information on how to unsubscribe from our 
> mailing list.
>
>
>


-- 
Clebert Suconic

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact

Announce: Unsubscribe links on our mail lists

[Clebert Suconic]

This will serve as an announce and as a test:


As a result from
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-25799 and our vote, from now on
our mail lists will include information on how to unsubscribe from our
mailing list.

Re: [RESULT] Include unsubscribe me on all ActiveMQ mail lists..

[Clebert Suconic]

Here is the JIRA on INFRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-25799

On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 2:43 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> The Vote has passed with
> 10 Votes (8 Bindines, 2 non Binding).
>
> Binding:
> Clebert Suconic
> Domenico Bruscino
> Matt Pavlovich
> Bruce Snyder
> Timothy Bish
> Christopher Shannon
> JB Onofre
> Arthur Nassef
>
> Non Binding:
> JD Liu
> Preveen Kumar
>
>
> Thanks for all who participate in the vote:
>
>
> That means we have consensus on adding the unsubscribe me link to all
> of our mail lists.
>
> I will create the JIRA for Infra to make the change and post the JIRA
> here shortly.
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:27 PM Arthur Naseef  wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 9:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 8:19 PM Clebert Suconic
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I want to propose having all of our user lists including an
> > > > Unsubscribe-me link at the end of the messages. Such unsubscribe-me
> > > > should include the link with enough information to remove such
> > > > subscriptions. Something like:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Click here To unsubscribe you from the  :
> > > >
> > > > - link to unsubscribe
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That way users will stop asking to be unsubscribed.. and any users not
> > > > knowing which alias was subscribed to the list wouldn't need to look
> > > > into the source of his email.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Apache Infra can do that but only after we got consensus from the
> > > > community, for that I'm starting a vote.
> > > >
> > > > Please indicate your vote with a +1 or -1. In case of a -1 please
> > > > indicate your reasoning for such.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here goes my +1 Binding Vote.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

[RESULT] Include unsubscribe me on all ActiveMQ mail lists..

[Clebert Suconic]

The Vote has passed with
10 Votes (8 Bindines, 2 non Binding).

Binding:
Clebert Suconic
Domenico Bruscino
Matt Pavlovich
Bruce Snyder
Timothy Bish
Christopher Shannon
JB Onofre
Arthur Nassef

Non Binding:
JD Liu
Preveen Kumar


Thanks for all who participate in the vote:


That means we have consensus on adding the unsubscribe me link to all
of our mail lists.

I will create the JIRA for Infra to make the change and post the JIRA
here shortly.

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:27 PM Arthur Naseef  wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 9:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  
> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 8:19 PM Clebert Suconic
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I want to propose having all of our user lists including an
> > > Unsubscribe-me link at the end of the messages. Such unsubscribe-me
> > > should include the link with enough information to remove such
> > > subscriptions. Something like:
> > >
> > >
> > > Click here To unsubscribe you from the  :
> > >
> > > - link to unsubscribe
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That way users will stop asking to be unsubscribed.. and any users not
> > > knowing which alias was subscribed to the list wouldn't need to look
> > > into the source of his email.
> > >
> > >
> > > Apache Infra can do that but only after we got consensus from the
> > > community, for that I'm starting a vote.
> > >
> > > Please indicate your vote with a +1 or -1. In case of a -1 please
> > > indicate your reasoning for such.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here goes my +1 Binding Vote.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Include unsubscribe me on all ActiveMQ mail lists..

[Clebert Suconic]

Just for clarification, such change would take effect in all of our
mail lists.. not just user's list.. that goes into Dev, Users,
commits, JIRA, and any other lists that I might be forgetting now.

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 2:19 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I want to propose having all of our user lists including an
> Unsubscribe-me link at the end of the messages. Such unsubscribe-me
> should include the link with enough information to remove such
> subscriptions. Something like:
>
>
> Click here To unsubscribe you from the  :
>
> - link to unsubscribe
>
>
>
> That way users will stop asking to be unsubscribed.. and any users not
> knowing which alias was subscribed to the list wouldn't need to look
> into the source of his email.
>
>
> Apache Infra can do that but only after we got consensus from the
> community, for that I'm starting a vote.
>
> Please indicate your vote with a +1 or -1. In case of a -1 please
> indicate your reasoning for such.
>
>
>
> Here goes my +1 Binding Vote.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

[VOTE] Include unsubscribe me on all ActiveMQ mail lists..

[Clebert Suconic]

I want to propose having all of our user lists including an
Unsubscribe-me link at the end of the messages. Such unsubscribe-me
should include the link with enough information to remove such
subscriptions. Something like:


Click here To unsubscribe you from the  :

- link to unsubscribe



That way users will stop asking to be unsubscribed.. and any users not
knowing which alias was subscribed to the list wouldn't need to look
into the source of his email.


Apache Infra can do that but only after we got consensus from the
community, for that I'm starting a vote.

Please indicate your vote with a +1 or -1. In case of a -1 please
indicate your reasoning for such.



Here goes my +1 Binding Vote.




-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 Release

[Clebert Suconic]

as usual I don't keep my promises :)

I didn't do it for personal conflicts.. but I'm going to do it as soon
as personal agenda clears up in the next few days.


On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 10:08 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I would like to start / tag a release on Friday, April 26th.
>
> If any concerns or tasks that you would like to get included please
> let me know here,  (if you could also include me with a tag on a
> github PR that would help me).
>
>
> This release will address a few recent and important fixes, so I think
> it's time for a new release now.
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

[HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 Release

[Clebert Suconic]

I would like to start / tag a release on Friday, April 26th.

If any concerns or tasks that you would like to get included please
let me know here,  (if you could also include me with a tag on a
github PR that would help me).


This release will address a few recent and important fixes, so I think
it's time for a new release now.

-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 6.1.2 release

[Clebert Suconic]

+1

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 5:06 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:08 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I submit Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 6.1.2 release to your vote.
> >
> > This release includes 8 fixes, especially:
> > - secure Jolokia and REST API by default
> > - fix on runtimeConfigurationPlugin JMX MBean reload operation
> > - fix when consuming empty destination via REST API
> > - fix client/server SSL socket configuration via URI
> >
> > You can take a look on Release Notes for details:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12354480
> >
> > Maven Staging Repository:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1395/
> >
> > Dist Staging Repository:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/6.1.2/
> >
> > Git tag: activemq-6.1.2
> >
> > 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
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 5.18.4 release

[Clebert Suconic]

+1 binding

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:24 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:

> Gentle reminder on this vote: we would need one more binding vote.
>
> Thanks !
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 11:25 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I submit Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 5.18.4 to your vote.
> >
> > This release is a maintenance release on the 5.18.x series, bringing
> > fixes and dependency updates, especially:
> > - Spring 5.3.33 update (related to Spring CVEs)
> > - Jetty 9.4.54.v20240208 update
> > - Jackson 2.16.2 update
> > - log4j 2.23.1 update
> > - several bug fixes/improvements
> >
> > You can take a look on Release Notes for details:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12353760
> >
> > Maven Staging Repository:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1394/
> >
> > Dist Staging Repository:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/5.18.4/
> >
> > Git tag: activemq-5.18.4
> >
> > 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
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from Jira to GitHub Issues

[Clebert Suconic]

I haven’t used it on the Apache Jira but I use private comments all the
time on my company JIRA for things that would be related to security and
injeritently private.

I thought we could eventually start using a feature like that and I thought
it would be a nice feature to keep.  But if everybody think we should keep
everything open and just use private list for private comments that’s fine.

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:47 PM Matt Pavlovich  wrote:

> Hi Clebert-
>
> How widely used are private comments today?
>
> I ran a search and I do not see any private comments in use with the
> ActiveMQ project. I tried searching the ARTEMIS project, perhaps I got the
> JQL incorrect?
>
> project = ARTEMIS AND issueFunction in commented("group activemq-pmc”)
> project = ARTEMIS AND issueFunction in commented(“role PMC")
>
> An available solution would be to use a private GH repo would secure all
> the items — code, issues, etc.. from unprivileged users. A PMC-only repo
> could have issues-only or discussion-only for CVE discussions.
>
> I think private comment is a wonky concept, as it is easy to get that
> toggled incorrectly. I think it is better to restrict access to a secured
> area vs trying to feather comments.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> > On Apr 5, 2024, at 11:47 AM, Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
> >
> > Is there a private comment capability on GitHub?  To me that’s a breaking
> > deal feature and I have never seen it.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 12:15 PM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
> > bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't have a strong opinion on migrating from Jira to GitHub Issues.
> >> I would prefer GitHub Issues only for its better integration and because
> >> new users that reach from the GitHub repository could be confused to not
> >> find the `Issues` tabs (most of the GitHub projects use it).
> >>
> >> Also GitHub Issues has a good REST interface, I'm using it in
> >> GithubIssueManager[1].
> >>
> >> @Justin Bertram  thanks the detailed doc!!!
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/brusdev/downstream-updater/blob/main/src/main/java/dev/brus/downstream/updater/issue/GithubIssueManager.java
> >>
> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 at 17:41, Clebert Suconic  >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would prefer to keep JIRA for their REST interface.
> >>>
> >>> Also: one thing to notice is the possibility of using private comments
> >>> in JIRA. Say you ever have a security issue. I think you can have PMC
> >>> private comments on JIRAs. I'm not sure you have the same in github
> >>> issues.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I didn't see a note about private comments on Justin's detailed doc
> >>> (nice Doc BTW), but the private comments may be handy on handling
> >>> sensitive issues.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:19 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The 'track version as Project' thing is interesting, though kinda
> >>>> further underscores the limitations of Milestones which are really the
> >>>> main surfaced way of handling versions.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll bet some folks on the 'users' side of things looking at released
> >>>> issues later would even miss that you are doing that (I would), since
> >>>> Projects are kinda separate and get even further hidden away upon
> >>>> completion; closed Projects are hidden/collapsed in the Issue/PR view
> >>>> on expectations they are no longer 'interesting', requiring you to
> >>>> spot that and expand the closed-projects view on each Issue/PR to see
> >>>> the Project later. Which to be fair I think is actually decent
> >>>> behaviour in general for their main use cases, since they aren't
> >>>> really aimed to be used as versions but more for using the 'swimlane'
> >>>> etc views given for managing/planning overall outstanding tasks to a
> >>>> point of completion and will then most typically be
> >>>> forgotten/less-interesting detail.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 22:52, Christopher Shannon
> >>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am also on the Accumulo PMC and on that project we use Github
> >> issues
> >>>>> and no longer use Jira. This switch was ma

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from Jira to GitHub Issues

[Clebert Suconic]

Is there a private comment capability on GitHub?  To me that’s a breaking
deal feature and I have never seen it.

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 12:15 PM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't have a strong opinion on migrating from Jira to GitHub Issues.
> I would prefer GitHub Issues only for its better integration and because
> new users that reach from the GitHub repository could be confused to not
> find the `Issues` tabs (most of the GitHub projects use it).
>
> Also GitHub Issues has a good REST interface, I'm using it in
> GithubIssueManager[1].
>
> @Justin Bertram  thanks the detailed doc!!!
>
> [1]
>
> https://github.com/brusdev/downstream-updater/blob/main/src/main/java/dev/brus/downstream/updater/issue/GithubIssueManager.java
>
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 at 17:41, Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
>
> > I would prefer to keep JIRA for their REST interface.
> >
> > Also: one thing to notice is the possibility of using private comments
> > in JIRA. Say you ever have a security issue. I think you can have PMC
> > private comments on JIRAs. I'm not sure you have the same in github
> > issues.
> >
> >
> > I didn't see a note about private comments on Justin's detailed doc
> > (nice Doc BTW), but the private comments may be handy on handling
> > sensitive issues.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:19 AM Robbie Gemmell 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The 'track version as Project' thing is interesting, though kinda
> > > further underscores the limitations of Milestones which are really the
> > > main surfaced way of handling versions.
> > >
> > > I'll bet some folks on the 'users' side of things looking at released
> > > issues later would even miss that you are doing that (I would), since
> > > Projects are kinda separate and get even further hidden away upon
> > > completion; closed Projects are hidden/collapsed in the Issue/PR view
> > > on expectations they are no longer 'interesting', requiring you to
> > > spot that and expand the closed-projects view on each Issue/PR to see
> > > the Project later. Which to be fair I think is actually decent
> > > behaviour in general for their main use cases, since they aren't
> > > really aimed to be used as versions but more for using the 'swimlane'
> > > etc views given for managing/planning overall outstanding tasks to a
> > > point of completion and will then most typically be
> > > forgotten/less-interesting detail.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 22:52, Christopher Shannon
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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 <
> > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To the later point around Discussions, I do think enabling those
> > could
> > > > > > be good either way since, just like with Jira, people will ofte

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from Jira to GitHub Issues

[Clebert Suconic]

I would prefer to keep JIRA for their REST interface.

Also: one thing to notice is the possibility of using private comments
in JIRA. Say you ever have a security issue. I think you can have PMC
private comments on JIRAs. I'm not sure you have the same in github
issues.


I didn't see a note about private comments on Justin's detailed doc
(nice Doc BTW), but the private comments may be handy on handling
sensitive issues.

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:19 AM Robbie Gemmell  wrote:
>
> The 'track version as Project' thing is interesting, though kinda
> further underscores the limitations of Milestones which are really the
> main surfaced way of handling versions.
>
> I'll bet some folks on the 'users' side of things looking at released
> issues later would even miss that you are doing that (I would), since
> Projects are kinda separate and get even further hidden away upon
> completion; closed Projects are hidden/collapsed in the Issue/PR view
> on expectations they are no longer 'interesting', requiring you to
> spot that and expand the closed-projects view on each Issue/PR to see
> the Project later. Which to be fair I think is actually decent
> behaviour in general for their main use cases, since they aren't
> really aimed to be used as versions but more for using the 'swimlane'
> etc views given for managing/planning overall outstanding tasks to a
> point of completion and will then most typically be
> forgotten/less-interesting detail.
>
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 22:52, Christopher Shannon
>  wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 6.1.1 release

[Clebert Suconic]

+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: Diverting messages to non existing destination

[Clebert Suconic]

can't you use the RoutingContext for anything like that? I thought we
had already had some stuff on it.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:41 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino
 wrote:
>
> I think we should always reuse the server session of the original context
> because it will be used to execute security checks before creating
> addresses and queues.
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 09:35, Anton Roskvist  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your feedback, and yes, I also agree that adding a boolean to
> > the divert-configis a good approach.
> >
> > There is one other thing about the implementation I'm thinking about
> > though... after the divert sends the message copy over to postOffice it
> > passes 2 additional auto-create-checks already. They are not passing
> > because the diverted message does not have an associated serverSession
> > which is where the actual auto-create-check is implemented.
> >
> > I can add the serverSession from the original context to the message copy,
> > and then the auto-creation works without any additional changes to the
> > divert. I do not know if this is okay to do though or if it has any
> > potential side effects (all divert related tests I've run passes).
> >
> > If this is an acceptable way of doing it, a divert-config such as
> > "reuse-user-session" could be used to gate new vs old behavior?
> >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.33.0

[Clebert Suconic]

+1 Binding


** Did some tests overall with the broker and CLI

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:10 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino
 wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> * Checked parent version in pom.xml files using `grep -LPrz --include
> pom.xml "(.|\n)*2.33.0<\/version>(.|\n)*<\/parent>" ./`
> * Ran binary broker instance on Fedora 38 using OpenJDK 17
> * Checked the web console using `Google Chrome`
> * Checked producing, browsing and consuming messages from a queue using
> `artemis check queue --name TEST --produce 1000 --browse 1000 --consume
> 1000`
>
> Connection brokerURL = tcp://localhost:61616
> Running QueueCheck
> Checking that a producer can send 1000 messages to the queue TEST ...
> success
> Checking that a consumer can browse 1000 messages from the queue TEST ...
> success
> Checking that a consumer can consume 1000 messages from the queue TEST ...
> success
> Checks run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2.845 sec
> - QueueCheck
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 00:14, Justin Bertram  wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.33.0 release.
> >
> > Here are some noteworthy updates in 2.33.0:
> >
> >  - Support for JSON formatted typed properties on CLI producer command
> >  - New CLI command pwd for showing directories related to the current
> > instance
> >  - Maven Bill of Materials (BOM) artemis-bom to simplify integration
> >  - "FirstMessage" API for scheduled messages
> >  - New "view" and "edit" permissions for management operations configurable
> > via security-settings in broker.xml
> >  - New sslAutoReload parameter for the embedded web server configured in
> > `bootstrap.xml` to detect and automatically reload when SSL stores change
> > on disk
> >  - Performance improvements on mirroring and paging
> >  - Logging metrics to mitigate the risk of missing WARN or ERROR messages
> > in the log.
> >  - Much improved documentation on network isolation (aka split brain)
> >  - Pluggable lock manager (aka pluggable quorum voting) out of
> > "experimental" status and ready for general use
> >
> > The release notes can be found here:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12354184
> >
> > Ths git commit report is here:
> >
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.33.0
> >
> > Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.33.0/
> >
> > The Maven staging repository is here:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1391/
> >
> > If you would like to validate the release:
> >
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
> >
> > It is tagged in the git repo as 2.33.0
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve this release
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> > Here's my +1
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: Diverting messages to non existing destination

[Clebert Suconic]

@dom Anton had added an address setting.

Perhaps we could have the property in the divert instead ?

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 4:01 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for the new divert setting proposed by Clebert
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 18:15, Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
>
> > I think we should do 1.
> > at that point we look for the address-settings on auto-create, if
> > auto-create is on, we should then create it.
> >
> >
> > However, to unlock the situation for those who may disagree.. Can't we
> > add a Setting to the Divert itself.
> >
> > we could have a boolean on the Divert deployment on check-auto-create
> > flags... and only do that logic if such flag is on?
> >
> >
> > that way you could also bypass any additional checks for those who
> > don't need the functionality.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 5:30 AM Roskvist Anton  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm working on a feature for Artemis where the use-case is the ability
> > to compute or alter a messages destination through a divert. In doing so
> > there is a possibility that the new destination might not exist on the
> > broker. There is some debate around how to handle this.
> > >
> > > The current behavior is to silently drop the messages in this scenario.
> > >
> > > There are currently two proposed solutions:
> > >
> > > 1. Handle it with the already existing "auto-create" logic, which is
> > subject to the address settings auto-create-addresses and
> > auto-create-queues.
> > > -Downside is that this might break a pre-existing use-case where these
> > messages are expected to fail.
> > >
> > > 2. Gate the same functionality with a new address-setting like:
> > "auto-create-divert-destinantions"
> > > -Downside here is that since the destination is not known beforehand,
> > lookups for the particular address settings in question will either be
> made
> > on each diverted message or some additional mechanism has to be put in
> > place to manage this.
> > >
> > > I'm looking for feedback on how you all feel this should be handled.
> > >
> > > Personally I feel the current behavior is a bit strange and should be
> > considered a bug, so I would prefer solution 1. To handle the case where
> > someone might expect this type of behavior, a note about this change
> could
> > be added to the brokers versions-page about the change in semantics along
> > with a suggestion to use something like a "black-hole" destination for
> > these messages instead.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > This email message (including its attachments) is confidential and may
> > contain privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the
> > individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> > intended recipient of this e-mail you may not disseminate, distribute or
> > copy this e-mail (including its attachments), or any part thereof. If
> this
> > e-mail is received in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> return
> > e-mail and make sure that this e-mail (including its attachments), and
> all
> > copies thereof, are immediately deleted from your system. Please further
> > note that when you communicate with us via email or visit our website we
> > process your personal data. See our privacy policy for more information
> > about how we process it: https://www.volvogroup.com/en-en/privacy.html
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>

Re: HEADS-UP Artemis 2.33.0 Release

[Clebert Suconic]

I will not be able to actually do this release.

I miscalculated the time for the VOTE versus when I'm expected to be away.


if someone else could do this release? (Justin Bertram? or anyone else
volunteering?)

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:29 AM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I would like to try releasing Artemis 2.33.0 on Monday, March, 18...
>
> If I miss this windo I won't be able to release that week as I will
> have vacations the week after.. .on which case I would like someone
> else to release or wait when I am back.
>
>
> Having said that, I would like to have everything ready before then...
> Please ping me on github with a tag-comment on anything you want to
> include.. or feel free to respond here with links to issues we should
> fix before releasing. (or do both if you want :) )
>
>
>
> thank you.
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

[Clebert Suconic]

sounds good to me also.

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 1:36 PM Robbie Gemmell  wrote:
>
> Seems good to me
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:35, Andy Taylor  wrote:
> >
> > so I am open to names, how about artemis-console-plugin v1.0.0
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on activemq-artemis-console-plugin
> > >
> > >
> > > As Robbie said, you will need different versions for it. I feel like
> > > it would be easier to use a different name... but I don't mind what
> > > you have to do. Whatever makes it easier to be implemented.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 1:10 PM Robbie Gemmell 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On the module name, if it stays the same then consideration would also
> > > > need to be given to the version. It would need to be higher than
> > > > before to keep using the same name, but using a broker version isnt
> > > > necessarily that obvious if we dont expect to release it on the same
> > > > schedule as the broker.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 16:46, Andy Taylor 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for  avtivemq-artemis-console-plugin but I think we should keep the
> > > > > artifact name as it is now for consistency, i.e. artemis-plugin
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 16:29, Robbie Gemmell  > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We should discuss the name then someone can create it via
> > > > > > https://selfserve.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be something of the form activemq-artemis- for
> > > > > > consistency. Regarding , what is actually going in it, a 
> > > > > > console
> > > > > > 'plugin' ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So perhaps activemq-artemis-console-plugin ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 07:46, Andy Taylor 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lets go with a separate repo then, @clebert or anyone, can you
> > > create me
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > new repo or talk me thru how to do it. What shall we call this new
> > > > > > > component/repo, considering we will still have an artemis-console
> > > module
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the artemis repo?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clebert, I will add this new fields in your PR to the new console
> > > as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 19:03, Clebert Suconic <
> > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think we have a consensus on a separate repo.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @Andy:  me an Anton, we wre adding a field for internal queues
> > > in the
> > > > > > admin
> > > > > > > > console. If you could make sure we keep that on the new one
> > > please ?
> > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > let us know how to adjust it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4856
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 AM Justin Bertram <
> > > jbert...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 for a separate repo
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Justin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:56 AM Andy Taylor <
> > > andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Clebert, I think it

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

[Clebert Suconic]

+1 on activemq-artemis-console-plugin


As Robbie said, you will need different versions for it. I feel like
it would be easier to use a different name... but I don't mind what
you have to do. Whatever makes it easier to be implemented.


On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 1:10 PM Robbie Gemmell  wrote:
>
> On the module name, if it stays the same then consideration would also
> need to be given to the version. It would need to be higher than
> before to keep using the same name, but using a broker version isnt
> necessarily that obvious if we dont expect to release it on the same
> schedule as the broker.
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 16:46, Andy Taylor  wrote:
> >
> > +1 for  avtivemq-artemis-console-plugin but I think we should keep the
> > artifact name as it is now for consistency, i.e. artemis-plugin
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 16:29, Robbie Gemmell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We should discuss the name then someone can create it via
> > > https://selfserve.apache.org
> > >
> > > It would be something of the form activemq-artemis- for
> > > consistency. Regarding , what is actually going in it, a console
> > > 'plugin' ?
> > >
> > > So perhaps activemq-artemis-console-plugin ?
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 07:46, Andy Taylor  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lets go with a separate repo then, @clebert or anyone, can you create me
> > > a
> > > > new repo or talk me thru how to do it. What shall we call this new
> > > > component/repo, considering we will still have an artemis-console module
> > > in
> > > > the artemis repo?
> > > >
> > > > Clebert, I will add this new fields in your PR to the new console as
> > > well.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 19:03, Clebert Suconic  > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think we have a consensus on a separate repo.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > @Andy:  me an Anton, we wre adding a field for internal queues in the
> > > admin
> > > > > console. If you could make sure we keep that on the new one please ?
> > > Or
> > > > > let us know how to adjust it?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4856
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 AM Justin Bertram 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for a separate repo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Justin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:56 AM Andy Taylor 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clebert, I think it will be weeks rather than days so I would just
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > when you are ready.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Robbie, I think for now a separate repo is my preferred solution,
> > > the
> > > > > > > console can actually be run outside of embedded artemis so
> > > development
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > easy. Can someone create a new repo?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 17:45, Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If it was a matter of 1 day to include it I would prefer to wait
> > > for
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > Other than that then I’m releasing on Monday.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:40 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > > > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd say the answer to 'Wait for  to do a release?' is
> > > usually
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > unless its about a blocking bug/regression or there's really
> > > > > nothing
> > > > > >

Re: Diverting messages to non existing destination

[Clebert Suconic]

I think we should do 1.
at that point we look for the address-settings on auto-create, if
auto-create is on, we should then create it.


However, to unlock the situation for those who may disagree.. Can't we
add a Setting to the Divert itself.

we could have a boolean on the Divert deployment on check-auto-create
flags... and only do that logic if such flag is on?


that way you could also bypass any additional checks for those who
don't need the functionality.


On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 5:30 AM Roskvist Anton  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on a feature for Artemis where the use-case is the ability to 
> compute or alter a messages destination through a divert. In doing so there 
> is a possibility that the new destination might not exist on the broker. 
> There is some debate around how to handle this.
>
> The current behavior is to silently drop the messages in this scenario.
>
> There are currently two proposed solutions:
>
> 1. Handle it with the already existing "auto-create" logic, which is subject 
> to the address settings auto-create-addresses and auto-create-queues.
> -Downside is that this might break a pre-existing use-case where these 
> messages are expected to fail.
>
> 2. Gate the same functionality with a new address-setting like: 
> "auto-create-divert-destinantions"
> -Downside here is that since the destination is not known beforehand, lookups 
> for the particular address settings in question will either be made on each 
> diverted message or some additional mechanism has to be put in place to 
> manage this.
>
> I'm looking for feedback on how you all feel this should be handled.
>
> Personally I feel the current behavior is a bit strange and should be 
> considered a bug, so I would prefer solution 1. To handle the case where 
> someone might expect this type of behavior, a note about this change could be 
> added to the brokers versions-page about the change in semantics along with a 
> suggestion to use something like a "black-hole" destination for these 
> messages instead.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> This email message (including its attachments) is confidential and may 
> contain privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the 
> individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended 
> recipient of this e-mail you may not disseminate, distribute or copy this 
> e-mail (including its attachments), or any part thereof. If this e-mail is 
> received in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and 
> make sure that this e-mail (including its attachments), and all copies 
> thereof, are immediately deleted from your system. Please further note that 
> when you communicate with us via email or visit our website we process your 
> personal data. See our privacy policy for more information about how we 
> process it: https://www.volvogroup.com/en-en/privacy.html



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

[Clebert Suconic]

I think we have a consensus on a separate repo.


@Andy:  me an Anton, we wre adding a field for internal queues in the admin
console. If you could make sure we keep that on the new one please ?  Or
let us know how to adjust it?


https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4856


On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 AM Justin Bertram  wrote:

> +1 for a separate repo
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:56 AM Andy Taylor 
> wrote:
>
> > Clebert, I think it will be weeks rather than days so I would just
> release
> > when you are ready.
> >
> > Robbie, I think for now a separate repo is my preferred solution, the
> > console can actually be run outside of embedded artemis so development is
> > easy. Can someone create a new repo?
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 17:45, Clebert Suconic  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If it was a matter of 1 day to include it I would prefer to wait for
> it.
> > > Other than that then I’m releasing on Monday.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:40 PM Robbie Gemmell <
> robbie.gemm...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd say the answer to 'Wait for  to do a release?' is usually no
> > > > unless its about a blocking bug/regression or there's really nothing
> > > > else important ready to go. This definitely isnt that and also isnt
> > > > ready yet while other stuff is, so seems a clear no to me.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 16:58, Clebert Suconic <
> > clebert.suco...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Should I wait for the 2.33 release ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > See my other thread about the heads up.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Or you think this may take a lot longer ?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:27 AM Andy Taylor <
> andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The current Artemis console is based on HawtIO 1 which itself is
> > > > written
> > > > > > using Bootstrap. Bootstrap is old and no longer maintained so
> > HawtIO
> > > > (v3/4)
> > > > > > has moved to use React and Patternfly and is also written in
> > > > Typescript.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been working in the background over the last several
> months
> > to
> > > > > > upgrade the console to hawtIO 4, this work can be found here
> > > > > > <
> > > >
> https://github.com/andytaylor/activemq-artemis/tree/artemis-console-ng
> > >.
> > > > > > This is still a WIP but is close to completion, I basically have
> to
> > > > finish
> > > > > > off some branding, fix the console tests and implement an upgrade
> > > > feature.
> > > > > > A couple of things to note:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >- I have separated out the JMX tree and its tabs from the tabs
> > > that
> > > > are
> > > > > >not related to the tree selection. I always found this a bit
> > > > strange so
> > > > > > now
> > > > > >there are 2 tabs Artemis and Artemis JMX, the latter uses the
> > JMX
> > > > tree
> > > > > > as
> > > > > >before. It is possible however to do anything in the Artemis
> tab
> > > > that
> > > > > > you
> > > > > >can do in the JMX tab, view attributes and operations for
> > > instance.
> > > > > > There
> > > > > >is an issue currently where if there are thousands of address
> or
> > > > queues
> > > > > >then performance becomes an issue. this is because the whole
> JMX
> > > > tree is
> > > > > >loaded into memory and this can cause even the broker to fall
> > > over.
> > > > My
> > > > > > plan
> > > > > >at some point is to allow disabling the JMX view and to lazy
> > load
> > > in
> > > > > > MBeans
> > > > > >as and when needed, this is a task for further down the road
> > tho.
> > > > > >- The console is built using yarn and is incredibly slow to
> > build,
> > > > in
> > > > > >fact it takes longer than it takes to build the rest of
> Artemis.
> > > It
> > > > may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > >better to have the new console in its own repository, release
> it
> > > > > >independently and just consume it in Artemis. This means some
> > > extra
> > > > work
> > > > > >for a release but once the console becomes stable it shouldn't
> > be
> > > > too
> > > > > > much
> > > > > >work. I will however let the community decide what is the best
> > > > approach.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are still a few issues I know of, the Attributes tab seems
> to
> > > > delay
> > > > > > loading and the broker topology diagram is incomplete but feel
> free
> > > to
> > > > > > suggest any improvements or buglets you come across on this
> thread.
> > > > > > Hopefully I can tie up the loose ends soon and raise a PR in the
> > not
> > > > too
> > > > > > distant future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andy
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

[Clebert Suconic]

+1 separate repo

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:12 AM Robbie Gemmell  wrote:
>
> That it can actually be run standalone would be another reason I'd
> also choose to go with a separate repo.
>
> Lets allow other folks time to chip in their opinions, if a separate
> repo appears to be the consensus we can then look to create one.
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 08:51, Andy Taylor  wrote:
> >
> > Clebert, I think it will be weeks rather than days so I would just release
> > when you are ready.
> >
> > Robbie, I think for now a separate repo is my preferred solution, the
> > console can actually be run outside of embedded artemis so development is
> > easy. Can someone create a new repo?
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 17:45, Clebert Suconic 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If it was a matter of 1 day to include it I would prefer to wait for it.
> > > Other than that then I’m releasing on Monday.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:40 PM Robbie Gemmell 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd say the answer to 'Wait for  to do a release?' is usually no
> > > > unless its about a blocking bug/regression or there's really nothing
> > > > else important ready to go. This definitely isnt that and also isnt
> > > > ready yet while other stuff is, so seems a clear no to me.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 16:58, Clebert Suconic  > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Should I wait for the 2.33 release ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > See my other thread about the heads up.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Or you think this may take a lot longer ?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:27 AM Andy Taylor 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The current Artemis console is based on HawtIO 1 which itself is
> > > > written
> > > > > > using Bootstrap. Bootstrap is old and no longer maintained so HawtIO
> > > > (v3/4)
> > > > > > has moved to use React and Patternfly and is also written in
> > > > Typescript.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been working in the background over the last several months 
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > upgrade the console to hawtIO 4, this work can be found here
> > > > > > <
> > > > https://github.com/andytaylor/activemq-artemis/tree/artemis-console-ng>.
> > > > > > This is still a WIP but is close to completion, I basically have to
> > > > finish
> > > > > > off some branding, fix the console tests and implement an upgrade
> > > > feature.
> > > > > > A couple of things to note:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >- I have separated out the JMX tree and its tabs from the tabs
> > > that
> > > > are
> > > > > >not related to the tree selection. I always found this a bit
> > > > strange so
> > > > > > now
> > > > > >there are 2 tabs Artemis and Artemis JMX, the latter uses the JMX
> > > > tree
> > > > > > as
> > > > > >before. It is possible however to do anything in the Artemis tab
> > > > that
> > > > > > you
> > > > > >can do in the JMX tab, view attributes and operations for
> > > instance.
> > > > > > There
> > > > > >is an issue currently where if there are thousands of address or
> > > > queues
> > > > > >then performance becomes an issue. this is because the whole JMX
> > > > tree is
> > > > > >loaded into memory and this can cause even the broker to fall
> > > over.
> > > > My
> > > > > > plan
> > > > > >at some point is to allow disabling the JMX view and to lazy load
> > > in
> > > > > > MBeans
> > > > > >as and when needed, this is a task for further down the road tho.
> > > > > >- The console is built using yarn and is incredibly slow to 
> > > > > > build,
> > > > in
> > > > > >fact it takes longer than it takes to build the rest of Artemis.
> > > It
> > > > may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > >better to have the new console in its own repository, release it
> > > > > >independently and just consume it in Artemis. This means some
> > > extra
> > > > work
> > > > > >for a release but once the console becomes stable it shouldn't be
> > > > too
> > > > > > much
> > > > > >work. I will however let the community decide what is the best
> > > > approach.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are still a few issues I know of, the Attributes tab seems to
> > > > delay
> > > > > > loading and the broker topology diagram is incomplete but feel free
> > > to
> > > > > > suggest any improvements or buglets you come across on this thread.
> > > > > > Hopefully I can tie up the loose ends soon and raise a PR in the not
> > > > too
> > > > > > distant future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andy
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

[Clebert Suconic]

If it was a matter of 1 day to include it I would prefer to wait for it.
Other than that then I’m releasing on Monday.


On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:40 PM Robbie Gemmell 
wrote:

> I'd say the answer to 'Wait for  to do a release?' is usually no
> unless its about a blocking bug/regression or there's really nothing
> else important ready to go. This definitely isnt that and also isnt
> ready yet while other stuff is, so seems a clear no to me.
>
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 16:58, Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
> >
> > Should I wait for the 2.33 release ?
> >
> >
> > See my other thread about the heads up.
> >
> >
> > Or you think this may take a lot longer ?
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:27 AM Andy Taylor 
> wrote:
> >
> > > The current Artemis console is based on HawtIO 1 which itself is
> written
> > > using Bootstrap. Bootstrap is old and no longer maintained so HawtIO
> (v3/4)
> > > has moved to use React and Patternfly and is also written in
> Typescript.
> > >
> > > I have been working in the background over the last several months to
> > > upgrade the console to hawtIO 4, this work can be found here
> > > <
> https://github.com/andytaylor/activemq-artemis/tree/artemis-console-ng>.
> > > This is still a WIP but is close to completion, I basically have to
> finish
> > > off some branding, fix the console tests and implement an upgrade
> feature.
> > > A couple of things to note:
> > >
> > >
> > >- I have separated out the JMX tree and its tabs from the tabs that
> are
> > >not related to the tree selection. I always found this a bit
> strange so
> > > now
> > >there are 2 tabs Artemis and Artemis JMX, the latter uses the JMX
> tree
> > > as
> > >before. It is possible however to do anything in the Artemis tab
> that
> > > you
> > >can do in the JMX tab, view attributes and operations for instance.
> > > There
> > >is an issue currently where if there are thousands of address or
> queues
> > >then performance becomes an issue. this is because the whole JMX
> tree is
> > >loaded into memory and this can cause even the broker to fall over.
> My
> > > plan
> > >at some point is to allow disabling the JMX view and to lazy load in
> > > MBeans
> > >as and when needed, this is a task for further down the road tho.
> > >- The console is built using yarn and is incredibly slow to build,
> in
> > >fact it takes longer than it takes to build the rest of Artemis. It
> may
> > > be
> > >better to have the new console in its own repository, release it
> > >independently and just consume it in Artemis. This means some extra
> work
> > >for a release but once the console becomes stable it shouldn't be
> too
> > > much
> > >work. I will however let the community decide what is the best
> approach.
> > >
> > >
> > > There are still a few issues I know of, the Attributes tab seems to
> delay
> > > loading and the broker topology diagram is incomplete but feel free to
> > > suggest any improvements or buglets you come across on this thread.
> > > Hopefully I can tie up the loose ends soon and raise a PR in the not
> too
> > > distant future.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
>

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

[Clebert Suconic]

Should I wait for the 2.33 release ?


See my other thread about the heads up.


Or you think this may take a lot longer ?

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:27 AM Andy Taylor  wrote:

> The current Artemis console is based on HawtIO 1 which itself is written
> using Bootstrap. Bootstrap is old and no longer maintained so HawtIO (v3/4)
> has moved to use React and Patternfly and is also written in Typescript.
>
> I have been working in the background over the last several months to
> upgrade the console to hawtIO 4, this work can be found here
> .
> This is still a WIP but is close to completion, I basically have to finish
> off some branding, fix the console tests and implement an upgrade feature.
> A couple of things to note:
>
>
>- I have separated out the JMX tree and its tabs from the tabs that are
>not related to the tree selection. I always found this a bit strange so
> now
>there are 2 tabs Artemis and Artemis JMX, the latter uses the JMX tree
> as
>before. It is possible however to do anything in the Artemis tab that
> you
>can do in the JMX tab, view attributes and operations for instance.
> There
>is an issue currently where if there are thousands of address or queues
>then performance becomes an issue. this is because the whole JMX tree is
>loaded into memory and this can cause even the broker to fall over. My
> plan
>at some point is to allow disabling the JMX view and to lazy load in
> MBeans
>as and when needed, this is a task for further down the road tho.
>- The console is built using yarn and is incredibly slow to build, in
>fact it takes longer than it takes to build the rest of Artemis. It may
> be
>better to have the new console in its own repository, release it
>independently and just consume it in Artemis. This means some extra work
>for a release but once the console becomes stable it shouldn't be too
> much
>work. I will however let the community decide what is the best approach.
>
>
> There are still a few issues I know of, the Attributes tab seems to delay
> loading and the broker topology diagram is incomplete but feel free to
> suggest any improvements or buglets you come across on this thread.
> Hopefully I can tie up the loose ends soon and raise a PR in the not too
> distant future.
>
> Andy
>

HEADS-UP Artemis 2.33.0 Release

[Clebert Suconic]

I would like to try releasing Artemis 2.33.0 on Monday, March, 18...

If I miss this windo I won't be able to release that week as I will
have vacations the week after.. .on which case I would like someone
else to release or wait when I am back.


Having said that, I would like to have everything ready before then...
Please ping me on github with a tag-comment on anything you want to
include.. or feel free to respond here with links to issues we should
fix before releasing. (or do both if you want :) )



thank you.

-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: new committer: Anton Roskvist

[Clebert Suconic]

Congrats Anton.  Thanks for all the contributions.


Welcome.

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:17 PM Bruce Snyder 
wrote:

> Congratulations and welcome, Anton!
>
> Bruce
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 8:42 AM Justin Bertram 
> wrote:
>
> > The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache ActiveMQ has invited
> > Anton Roskvist to become a committer and we are pleased to announce that
> > they have accepted.
> >
> > Welcome, Anton!
> >
> > Being a committer enables easier contribution to the project since there
> is
> > no need to go via the patch submission process. This should enable better
> > productivity. A PMC member helps manage and guide the direction of the
> > project.
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E http://bsnyder.org/ 
>

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.32.0 Released

[Clebert Suconic]

I'm pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.32.0.


Downloads are now available at:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/

For a complete list of updates:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/release-notes-2.32.0


I would like to highlight the following for this release:
* Mirrored Core Messages can now be sent in their native format
without conversions
* Mirror has been extensively tested and improved in stability
* ActiveMQ Artemis has now adopted more inclusive language definitions.
* The examples are now part of its own repository:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis-examples/


As usual it contains a handful of bug fixes and other improvements.


Many thanks for all the contributors to this release.

[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.32.0

[Clebert Suconic]

The vote passed with 5 Binding Votes

+1 Robbie Gemmel
+1 Tim Bish
+1 Domenico
+1 JB Onofre
+1 Clebert Suconic


Thank you to everyone who contributed and took the time to review the

release candidates and vote.


I will add the files to the dist release repo and release the maven
staging repo, updating the website once it has had time to sync to the
CDN and Maven Central.



Regards

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.32.0

[Clebert Suconic]

this is to record my +1 Binding Vote

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:29 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.32.0 release.
>
>
> I would like to highlight the following for this release:
>
>
> * Mirrored Core Messages can now be sent in their native format
> without conversions
> * Mirror has been extensively tested and improved in stability
> * ActiveMQ Artemis has now adopted more inclusive language definitions.
> * The examples are now part of its own repository:
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis-examples/
>
>
> And bug fixes and other improvements as usually. for the full JIRA
> report refer to:
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12353769
>
>
>
> Ths git commit report is here:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.32.0
>
>
> Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.32.0
>
> The Maven staging repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1384
>
>
>
> If you would like to validate the release:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
>
>
>
>
> It is tagged in the git repo as 2.32.0
>
>
> [ ] +1 approve this release
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)



-- 
Clebert Suconic

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.32.0

[Clebert Suconic]

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.32.0 release.


I would like to highlight the following for this release:


* Mirrored Core Messages can now be sent in their native format
without conversions
* Mirror has been extensively tested and improved in stability
* ActiveMQ Artemis has now adopted more inclusive language definitions.
* The examples are now part of its own repository:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis-examples/


And bug fixes and other improvements as usually. for the full JIRA
report refer to:


https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12353769



Ths git commit report is here:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.32.0


Source and binary distributions can be found here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.32.0

The Maven staging repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1384



If you would like to validate the release:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases




It is tagged in the git repo as 2.32.0


[ ] +1 approve this release
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release in Wed...

[Clebert Suconic]

Lets do this release without this one... and we can do it on the next.
I can't make the test to run correctly.

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:09 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> Let me work on it tomorrow.
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 2:51 PM Roskvist Anton  
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Would be great if https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4705 could 
>> be considered for merging, it has been bothering me for quite some time... 
>> provided the PR looks good of course. If it needs further verification or 
>> work there's always next release :)
>>
>> Br,
>> Anton
>>
>> This email message (including its attachments) is confidential and may 
>> contain privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the 
>> individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the 
>> intended recipient of this e-mail you may not disseminate, distribute or 
>> copy this e-mail (including its attachments), or any part thereof. If this 
>> e-mail is received in error, please notify the sender immediately by return 
>> e-mail and make sure that this e-mail (including its attachments), and all 
>> copies thereof, are immediately deleted from your system. Please further 
>> note that when you communicate with us via email or visit our website we 
>> process your personal data. See our privacy policy for more information 
>> about how we process it: https://www.volvogroup.com/en-en/privacy.html



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release in Wed...

[Clebert Suconic]

Let me work on it tomorrow.

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 2:51 PM Roskvist Anton 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Would be great if https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4705
> could be considered for merging, it has been bothering me for quite some
> time... provided the PR looks good of course. If it needs further
> verification or work there's always next release :)
>
> Br,
> Anton
>
> This email message (including its attachments) is confidential and may
> contain privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the
> individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this e-mail you may not disseminate, distribute or
> copy this e-mail (including its attachments), or any part thereof. If this
> e-mail is received in error, please notify the sender immediately by return
> e-mail and make sure that this e-mail (including its attachments), and all
> copies thereof, are immediately deleted from your system. Please further
> note that when you communicate with us via email or visit our website we
> process your personal data. See our privacy policy for more information
> about how we process it: https://www.volvogroup.com/en-en/privacy.html
>

[HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis release in Wed...

[Clebert Suconic]

I'm aiming to release on Wed Morning... willing to delay a day if
anyone needs it... (please ping me on this thread if a delay is
needed).


Otherwise if you get your PRs merged tomorrow and before then they
will be part of the release :)

-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [roadmap] ActiveMQ LTS

[Clebert Suconic]

The term LTS implies support though. (Long Term *SUPPORT*). I would be
careful with that terminology.

there are a few companies offering support to ActiveMQ.


The terminology used here was more an overload to a stable branch, or
it was actually meant on the "support" side?

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 9:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> I think it's what I proposed: 5.18.x should be our LTS branch currently.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 3:19 PM Matt Pavlovich  wrote:
> >
> > Hey JB-
> >
> > +1 I agree, formalizing and communicating LTS is important to users.
> >
> > However, I think we should have a *released* branch that we feel is solid 
> > to base LTS off of vs declaring a future unreleased branch as a LTS release.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > > On Dec 21, 2023, at 3:29 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré  
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi François,
> > >
> > > We discussed LTS/EOA but without commitment yet.
> > >
> > > The thing we agreed on is to maintain 3 branches active (so 6.0.x,
> > > 5.18.x, 5.17.x right now). The same as we do in Apache Karaf
> > > basically. I would consider it a kind of informal LTS :)
> > > If we need to have a concrete LTS plan, then 5.18.x would be LTS but not 
> > > 6.0.x.
> > >
> > > In terms of roadmap, we have basically:
> > > - 6.1.x plan to include new JMS features support
> > > - 6.x (6.2.x, 6.3.x, etc) will follow the same path with new JMS
> > > features support
> > > - 7.x will be a big milestone because we plan to remove Spring
> > > (supporting new configuration format like activemq,xml, activemq,yaml,
> > > activemq.json, etc), add new tools, etc
> > >
> > > If there are no objections, I can start a formal vote for LTS policy
> > > and if the vote passes I can update the website.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 8:04 AM Francois Papon
> > >  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Now that the current release is on 6.x, I am searching for LTS
> > >> informations about the 5.x version but I cannot find it on the website.
> > >>
> > >> Is there some info about this topic?
> > >>
> > >> regards,
> > >>
> > >> François
> > >>
> >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.1 release

[Clebert Suconic]

+1

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:17 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Following the 6.0.0 release, I submit 6.0.1 to your vote.
> >
> > This release includes fixes on top of 6.0.0, especially:
> > - fix Jakarta namespace in ActiveMQ RA
> > - fix OSGi headers in activemq-cf and activemq-jms-pool
> > - fix jolokia conf on Windows wrapper
> > - fix Jetty secure connector example
> >
> > Release Notes:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12353594
> >
> > Maven Staging Repository:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1383/
> >
> > Dist Staging Repository:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/6.0.1/
> >
> > Git tag: activemq-6.0.1
> >
> > 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
>

Re: activeMQ compatibility with jdk and wildfly version

[Clebert Suconic]

The Artemis in wildfly is not affected by the CVE as openwire is not
deployed in openwire.


Also 2.31 requires jdk 11 but I think it’s a worth choice as there are many
fixes in the broker.

On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 9:40 AM Bhargav Budida 
wrote:

> Hi Team,
>
> This is regarding a recent vulnerability
> CVE-2023-46604
> I am currently using *activeMQ-artemis 2.16.0*, (Jboss) *Wildfly 24.0.0
> *and
> *JDK 1.8*.
>
> The latest version of activeMQ-artemis 2.31.2 is not supported by jdk1.8.
> So I need your assistance with the below queries
> 1. Will activeMQ artemis 2.31.2 is compatible with JDK 11 + Wildfly
> 24.0.0.final or not ?
> 2. Are there any configurations required to work with the latest artemis
> 2.31.2 version, so that it could be compatible with my current server
> (Wildfly 24.0.0) version
> 3. As per the mitigation plan over CVE we need to upgrade to 2.31.2 version
> which is compatible with JDK 11, similar to this do we have the fix in
> artemis 2.19.x version? as it is compatible with JDK 8.
>
> Please consider this a priority and share your thoughts ASAP.
> Thanks in advance
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Bhargav
> 9860584899
>

Re: activeMQ compatibility with jdk and wildfly version

[Clebert Suconic]

if by compatible you mean if the client can communicate with the
artemis on the wildfly server.. it should work.

I'm not sure otherwise.. .and I would stick with Justin's
recommendation if you meant something else.

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 12:10 PM Bhargav Budida  wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
> I am currently using activeMQ-artemis 2.16.0 version , my wildfly version
> is 24.0.0 and jdk is 1.8.
>
> latest versions of activeMQ 2.31.2 is not supported by jdk1.8.
> So i need below info required to upgrade
> 1. Will activeMQ artemis 2.31.2 is compatible with JDK 11 and Wildfly
> 24.0.0.final or not ?
> 2. I don't want to upgrade my wildfly version, so are there any
> configurations required to work with latest artemis version
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Bhargav
> 9860584899



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.2

[Clebert Suconic]

+1 binding

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:21 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino <
bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> * Checked parent version in pom.xml files using `grep -LPrz --include
> pom.xml "(.|\n)*2.31.2<\/version>(.|\n)*<\/parent>" ./`
> * Ran binary broker instance on Fedora 36 using OpenJDK 17
> * Checked the web console using `Google Chrome`
> * Checked producing, browsing and consuming messages from a queue using
> `artemis check queue --name TEST --produce 1000 --browse 1000 --consume
> 1000`
>
> Connection brokerURL = tcp://localhost:61616
> Running QueueCheck
> Checking that a producer can send 1000 messages to the queue TEST ...
> success
> Checking that a consumer can browse 1000 messages from the queue TEST ...
> success
> Checking that a consumer can consume 1000 messages from the queue TEST ...
> success
> Checks run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2.838 sec
> - QueueCheck
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 13:16, Robbie Gemmell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.2 release.
> >
> > This addresses a defect introduced in the recent 2.31.1 release.
> >
> > The release notes can be found here:
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12353776
> >
> > Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.31.2/
> >
> > The Maven staging repository is here:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1379
> >
> > If you would like to validate the release:
> >
> >
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
> >
> > It is tagged in the git repo as 2.31.2.
> >
> > Robbie
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] moving the artemis examples to their own git repository

[Clebert Suconic]

+1 for me... It takes quite a lot to upload a release because of this.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:59 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
>
> Yeah, I think it's a good idea to separate the example:
> - they can leave with their own lifecycle
> - they don't "impact" build on the main
>
> +1 for me
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:12 PM Robbie Gemmell
>  wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to move the artemis examples out of the main build+repo and
> > into a specific repo of their own.
> >
> > There are a significant number of them, most of which rarely change,
> > and I think it would be nicer to have them sitting standalone. Having
> > them in-build somewhat complicates things as they are, and also quite
> > significantly slows down the release process currently. The repo/build
> > also tends to be marked for security issues that are only related to
> > the examples components (obviously we'd still want to update things in
> > the separate repo, but theyd at least be separate). The nightly
> > snapshot deploy job takes an age, mostly due to the examples. There is
> > really no reason we should be deploying them, so I'd also stop doing
> > that in a shift; I wouldnt actually envisage us releasing the examples
> > at all. We would set up the CI to continue building them similarly to
> > as we do now, theyd just sit separately.
> >
> > Several other projects also use separate repos for their examples,
> > especially those with many of them. Specific cases I can think of
> > coming across most regularly are probably the multiple variants of
> > Camel, and Quarkus. On searching here at the ASF there do appear to be
> > various other projects that do this too:
> > https://github.com/orgs/apache/repositories?language=&q=examples&sort=&type=all
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Robbie



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.16 release

[Clebert Suconic]

+1

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:17 AM Matt Pavlovich  wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> > On Oct 26, 2023, at 6:00 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I submit ActiveMQ 5.15.16 to your vote. We did one improvement on this 
> > release:
> > - improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
> >
> > Here's the Release Notes:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12353758
> >
> > Maven Staging Repository:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1378/
> >
> > Dist Staging Repository:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/5.15.16/
> >
> > Git tag: activemq-5.15.16
> >
> > 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 or as soon as we will
> > have 3 binding votes.
> >
> > Thanks !
> > Regards
> > JB
>


-- 
Clebert Suconic

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.1 released

[Clebert Suconic]

I am pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.1


Downloads are now available at:

https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/


For a complete list of updates:

https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/release-notes-2.31.1


This is a bug fix and component upgrade release.


Many thanks for all who helped on this release and the votes review
during the Release Voting Process.


-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.1 release

[Clebert Suconic]

The vote passed with 3 binding votes: Clebert, Christopher Shannon and
Timothy Bish



I'm uploading the release now.

Thank you everyone!


Clebert

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 5:10 PM Timothy Bish  wrote:
>
> On 10/25/23 16:33, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.1
> >
> > This release contains bug fixes, improvements and component upgrades.
> >
> > For a complete release refer to the JIRA release notes:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12353642
> >
> > Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.31.1
> >
> >
> > The Maven repository is here:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1377
> >
> > If you would like to validate the release:
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases
> >
> > The release was tagged on git/github as 2.31.1
> >
> >
> >
> > I will update the website with docs and related artifacts once the
> > release has passed
> >
> >
> > It is required to have at least 3 votes for this release to pass
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve this release
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> >
> > I'm already recording my +1 binding vote as part of this email..
> +1
>
> * Validated signatures and checksums
> * Verified license and notice files in archives
> * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check'
> * Ran the binary broker and gave the web console a try
> * Ran a the full set of AMQP of tests
> * Ran the binary broker instance and executed examples from Qpid
> protonj2 against it
>
> --
> Tim Bish
>


-- 
Clebert Suconic

[VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.1 release

[Clebert Suconic]

I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.1

This release contains bug fixes, improvements and component upgrades.

For a complete release refer to the JIRA release notes:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12353642

Source and binary distributions can be found here:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.31.1


The Maven repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1377

If you would like to validate the release:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/#validating-releases

The release was tagged on git/github as 2.31.1



I will update the website with docs and related artifacts once the
release has passed


It is required to have at least 3 votes for this release to pass

[ ] +1 approve this release
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)


I'm already recording my +1 binding vote as part of this email..

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing ant call from Artemis/DTO

[Clebert Suconic]

Just to record what Robbie Gemmel sent me :
https://github.com/mojohaus/jaxb2-maven-plugin


i'm not sure it works yet... just putting it here as a future note.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 6:03 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> In artemis/DTO, there's an ant call:
>
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/9b56d296a31e1d1274f248b1fae1d50056090725/artemis-dto/pom.xml#L97-L132
>
>
>
> This ant call is creating some leak with javac somehow.. after I
> investigated it a bit with maven guys:
> https://github.com/apache/maven-mvnd/issues/897
>
>
>
>
> I would appreciate any help on getting rid of this call.. does anyone
> know a better way to do this?
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.6 release

[Clebert Suconic]

+1

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:01 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.6 release to your vote. This release is
> > a maintenance release on the 5.17.x series bringing:
> > - improvement on KahaDB memory consumption
> > - add additional fields on JMX Connection MBean
> > - improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
> > - a lot of dependency updates
> >
> > You can take a look on the Release Notes for details:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12353377
> >
> > Maven Staging Repository:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1374/
> >
> > Dist Staging Repository:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/5.17.6/
> >
> > Git tag: activemq-5.17.6
> >
> > 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 or as soon as we will
> > have 3 binding votes.
> >
> > Thanks !
> > Regards
> > JB



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.7 release

[Clebert Suconic]

+1

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:57 AM Justin Bertram  wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:43 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.7 release to your vote.
> > We did a single improvement in this release:
> > - improvement on OpenWire marshaller on Throwable class type
> >
> > Here's the Release Notes:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12353758
> >
> > Maven Staging Repository:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1375/
> >
> > Dist Staging Repository:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/5.16.7/
> >
> > Git tag: activemq-5.16.7
> >
> > 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 or as soon as we will
> > have 3 binding votes.
> >
> > Thanks !
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >



-- 
Clebert Suconic

[DISCUSS] Removing ant call from Artemis/DTO

[Clebert Suconic]

In artemis/DTO, there's an ant call:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/9b56d296a31e1d1274f248b1fae1d50056090725/artemis-dto/pom.xml#L97-L132



This ant call is creating some leak with javac somehow.. after I
investigated it a bit with maven guys:
https://github.com/apache/maven-mvnd/issues/897




I would appreciate any help on getting rid of this call.. does anyone
know a better way to do this?


Thanks


-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis early next week

[Clebert Suconic]

I'm dealing with an issue that I think it's worth waiting for.. so I'm
postponing it.


Instead of missing another deadline by saying I'm doing this next
week, I will just say I will do as soon as I finished that JIRA, and I
will send another update here like 1 or 2 days actually cutting it.


Sorry for any problems.

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:45 AM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> sorry, I pressed sent by accident...
>
>
> So, as I'm consdering the release next week, please use this thread to
> inform me of anything that must be merged / fixed before we cut the
> release.
>
>
> You could also ping me with a comment on the github PR.
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
>  wrote:
> >
> > I'm considering cutting a release early next week, around Oct-16th.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Re: [HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis early next week

[Clebert Suconic]

sorry, I pressed sent by accident...


So, as I'm consdering the release next week, please use this thread to
inform me of anything that must be merged / fixed before we cut the
release.


You could also ping me with a comment on the github PR.

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I'm considering cutting a release early next week, around Oct-16th.
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

[HEADS-UP] ActiveMQ Artemis early next week

[Clebert Suconic]

I'm considering cutting a release early next week, around Oct-16th.



-- 
Clebert Suconic

[ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.0 Released

[Clebert Suconic]

I am pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.0


Downloads are now available at:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/


For a complete list of updates:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/release-notes-2.31.0


I would like to highlights some of the improvements:

* Improvements on the Artemis CLI:
- 
https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/using-cli.html#command-line-interface

  * Introduced a new feature, Artemis shell, as part of 2.31.0. When
you run ./artemis shell, a new terminal screen will help you navigate
through the CLI commands.
  * The shell terminal will also be presented when you run ./artemis.
  * You can use bash auto-complete. Run ./artemis auto-complete to
generate a bash script that provides auto-complete information for
your bash shell.
  * Added a CLI cluster verification tool to help you monitor your
broker topologies. Type ./artemis check cluster to access this
functionality.
  *  You can now use ./artemis queue stat to verify the message counts
on the entire cluster topology when clustering is in use.

AMQP Federation:
  * Added AMQP Federation support to broker connections.

* MQTT Session State Persistence:

* Paging JDBC Persistence performance was improved significantly

* The documentation was converted to Ascii Doc.

* Many other bug fixes and improvements, as usual.

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.0 (RC2)

[Clebert Suconic]

Release has passed

6 Binding votes:


Clebert Suconic
Tim Bish
JB Onofre
Domenico Bruschino
Robbie Gemmel
Justin Bertram



I will stage the website now and send an update (announce) when I'm done.


Thanks for taking the time on this vote thread.


On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 3:15 PM Justin Bertram  wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Very nice release!
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 2:50 PM Clebert Suconic 
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.0 release.
> > This is the 2nd Respin of the release (RC2)
> >
> > This was a large release overall with many improvements, and I'm proud
> > of what we accomplished on this release. Thanks for all who
> > contributed to this release by both raising JIRAs or contributing
> > changes:
> >
> > * Improvements on the Artemis CLI:
> >
> >   * Introduced a new feature, Artemis shell, as part of 2.31.0. When
> > you run ./artemis shell, a new terminal screen will help you navigate
> > through the CLI commands.
> >   * The shell terminal will also be presented when you run ./artemis.
> >   * You can use bash auto-complete. Run ./artemis auto-complete to
> > generate a bash script that provides auto-complete information for
> > your bash shell.
> >   * Added a CLI cluster verification tool to help you monitor your
> > broker topologies. Type ./artemis check cluster to access this
> > functionality.
> >   *  You can now use ./artemis queue stat to verify the message counts
> > on the entire cluster topology when clustering is in use.
> >
> > AMQP Federation:
> >   * Added AMQP Federation support to broker connections.
> >
> > * MQTT Session State Persistence:
> >
> > * Paging JDBC Persistence performance was improved significantly
> >
> > * The documentation was converted to Ascii Doc.
> >
> > * Many other bug fixes and improvements, as usual.
> >
> >
> > The full JIRA release notes can be found here:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12353446
> >
> > Ths git commit report is here:
> >
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.31.0
> >
> > Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.31.0/
> >
> > The Maven repository is here:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1370
> >
> > In case you want to give it a try with the maven repo on examples:
> >
> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/validating-releases.html
> >
> > The release was tagged as 2.31.0 on git
> >
> > I will update the website after the vote has passed.
> >
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve this release
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> > Here's my +1 Binding vote
> >
> >



--
Clebert Suconic

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.0 (RC2)

[Clebert Suconic]

Just a small correction, the Maven Repository URI :

https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1371


Sorry for the copy & paste mistake.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 3:40 PM Clebert Suconic
 wrote:
>
> I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.0 release.
> This is the 2nd Respin of the release (RC2)
>
> This was a large release overall with many improvements, and I'm proud
> of what we accomplished on this release. Thanks for all who
> contributed to this release by both raising JIRAs or contributing
> changes:
>
> * Improvements on the Artemis CLI:
>
>   * Introduced a new feature, Artemis shell, as part of 2.31.0. When
> you run ./artemis shell, a new terminal screen will help you navigate
> through the CLI commands.
>   * The shell terminal will also be presented when you run ./artemis.
>   * You can use bash auto-complete. Run ./artemis auto-complete to
> generate a bash script that provides auto-complete information for
> your bash shell.
>   * Added a CLI cluster verification tool to help you monitor your
> broker topologies. Type ./artemis check cluster to access this
> functionality.
>   *  You can now use ./artemis queue stat to verify the message counts
> on the entire cluster topology when clustering is in use.
>
> AMQP Federation:
>   * Added AMQP Federation support to broker connections.
>
> * MQTT Session State Persistence:
>
> * Paging JDBC Persistence performance was improved significantly
>
> * The documentation was converted to Ascii Doc.
>
> * Many other bug fixes and improvements, as usual.
>
>
> The full JIRA release notes can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12353446
>
> Ths git commit report is here:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/commit-report-2.31.0
>
> Source and binary distributions can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-artemis/2.31.0/
>
> The Maven repository is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1370
>
> In case you want to give it a try with the maven repo on examples:
> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/hacking-guide/validating-releases.html
>
> The release was tagged as 2.31.0 on git
>
> I will update the website after the vote has passed.
>
>
> [ ] +1 approve this release
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here's my +1 Binding vote



-- 
Clebert Suconic