[jira] [Updated] (DISPATCH-222) For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton to 0.12.0
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Ted Ross updated DISPATCH-222: -- Assignee: Ganesh Murthy > For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton > to 0.12.0 > -- > > Key: DISPATCH-222 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222 > Project: Qpid Dispatch > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Container >Affects Versions: 0.6 >Reporter: Ganesh Murthy >Assignee: Ganesh Murthy > Fix For: 0.6 > > > The fix for DISPATCH-200 which is going to be included in Dispatch 0.6 > release depends on the fix to PROTON-1088 which is available only in > apid-proton release 0.12.0. > Modify the minimum version proton required to 0.12.0 in CMakeLists.txt -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (DISPATCH-222) For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton to 0.12.0
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15256789#comment-15256789 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on DISPATCH-222: -- Commit 9c8e4a24a0432ed3137ebee99519383acf52c215 in qpid-dispatch's branch refs/heads/master from [~ganeshmurthy] [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-dispatch.git;h=9c8e4a2 ] DISPATCH-222 - Updated minimum required version proton in README to 0.12 > For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton > to 0.12.0 > -- > > Key: DISPATCH-222 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222 > Project: Qpid Dispatch > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Container >Affects Versions: 0.6 >Reporter: Ganesh Murthy > Fix For: 0.6 > > > The fix for DISPATCH-200 which is going to be included in Dispatch 0.6 > release depends on the fix to PROTON-1088 which is available only in > apid-proton release 0.12.0. > Modify the minimum version proton required to 0.12.0 in CMakeLists.txt -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
[jira] [Resolved] (DISPATCH-222) For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton to 0.12.0
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Ganesh Murthy resolved DISPATCH-222. Resolution: Fixed Fix Version/s: 0.6 > For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton > to 0.12.0 > -- > > Key: DISPATCH-222 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222 > Project: Qpid Dispatch > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Container >Affects Versions: 0.6 >Reporter: Ganesh Murthy > Fix For: 0.6 > > > The fix for DISPATCH-200 which is going to be included in Dispatch 0.6 > release depends on the fix to PROTON-1088 which is available only in > apid-proton release 0.12.0. > Modify the minimum version proton required to 0.12.0 in CMakeLists.txt -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (DISPATCH-222) For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton to 0.12.0
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15158856#comment-15158856 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on DISPATCH-222: - Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/qpid-dispatch/pull/47 > For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton > to 0.12.0 > -- > > Key: DISPATCH-222 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222 > Project: Qpid Dispatch > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Container >Affects Versions: 0.6 >Reporter: Ganesh Murthy > > The fix for DISPATCH-200 which is going to be included in Dispatch 0.6 > release depends on the fix to PROTON-1088 which is available only in > apid-proton release 0.12.0. > Modify the minimum version proton required to 0.12.0 in CMakeLists.txt -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (DISPATCH-222) For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton to 0.12.0
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15158855#comment-15158855 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on DISPATCH-222: -- Commit 6592d386bef302856c0936adffbeefd6c7f4ef12 in qpid-dispatch's branch refs/heads/master from [~ganeshmurthy] [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-dispatch.git;h=6592d38 ] DISPATCH-222 - Make Proton 0.12 version required > For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton > to 0.12.0 > -- > > Key: DISPATCH-222 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222 > Project: Qpid Dispatch > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Container >Affects Versions: 0.6 >Reporter: Ganesh Murthy > > The fix for DISPATCH-200 which is going to be included in Dispatch 0.6 > release depends on the fix to PROTON-1088 which is available only in > apid-proton release 0.12.0. > Modify the minimum version proton required to 0.12.0 in CMakeLists.txt -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (DISPATCH-222) For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton to 0.12.0
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15157703#comment-15157703 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on DISPATCH-222: - GitHub user ganeshmurthy opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/qpid-dispatch/pull/47 DISPATCH-222 - Make Proton 0.12 version required You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/ganeshmurthy/qpid-dispatch DISPATCH-222 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/qpid-dispatch/pull/47.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #47 commit 6592d386bef302856c0936adffbeefd6c7f4ef12 Author: Ganesh Murthy Date: 2016-02-22T14:48:45Z DISPATCH-222 - Make Proton 0.12 version required > For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton > to 0.12.0 > -- > > Key: DISPATCH-222 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222 > Project: Qpid Dispatch > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Container >Affects Versions: 0.6 >Reporter: Ganesh Murthy > > The fix for DISPATCH-200 which is going to be included in Dispatch 0.6 > release depends on the fix to PROTON-1088 which is available only in > apid-proton release 0.12.0. > Modify the minimum version proton required to 0.12.0 in CMakeLists.txt -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
[jira] [Created] (DISPATCH-222) For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton to 0.12.0
Ganesh Murthy created DISPATCH-222: -- Summary: For Dispatch 0.6 release move up the minimum required version of qpid proton to 0.12.0 Key: DISPATCH-222 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-222 Project: Qpid Dispatch Issue Type: Bug Components: Container Affects Versions: 0.6 Reporter: Ganesh Murthy The fix for DISPATCH-200 which is going to be included in Dispatch 0.6 release depends on the fix to PROTON-1088 which is available only in apid-proton release 0.12.0. Modify the minimum version proton required to 0.12.0 in CMakeLists.txt -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
[jira] [Closed] (QPID-2414) Generated Makefile fails to install broker header files on 0.6-release branch.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2414?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Justin Ross closed QPID-2414. - > Generated Makefile fails to install broker header files on 0.6-release branch. > -- > > Key: QPID-2414 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2414 > Project: Qpid > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Build Tools >Affects Versions: 0.6 > Environment: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 (etch); automake 1:1.10+nogfdl-1; > libtool 1.5.24-2~bpo40+1; gawk 1:3.1.5.dfsg-4; pkg-config 0.21-1; groff > 1.18.1.1-21~bpo40+1 >Reporter: Inoshiro Linden > > The install process fails to install broker-related header files into the > system. The process used was: > # apt-get install -y git-core subversion build-essential make uuid-dev > automake libtool gawk pkg-config groff libapr1-dev libaprutil1-dev > libboost-dev libboost-program-options-dev libboost-filesystem-dev > libboost-regex-dev ruby libnss3-dev libaio-dev libdb4.4++-dev python > libboost-test-dev > # git clone git://git.apache.org/qpid.git qpid > ... Install corosync-1.0.0 from > ftp://ftp%40corosync%2Eorg:downlo...@corosync.org/downloads/corosync-1.0.0/corosync-1.0.0.tar.gz > ... Note I had to use this configure command to get corosync to > build/install: FLAGS='-pthread -D_GNU_SOURCE' ./configure > # cd qpid/qpid/cpp > # ./bootstrap > # ./configure --prefix=/usr > # make > # make install > At this point I try to build the persistence persistence module: > # cd ../../.. > # svn co -r 3793 'http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/rhmessaging/store/trunk/cpp' > qpid-persistence-cpp > # cd qpid-persistence-cpp > # ./bootstrap > # ./configure --with-qpid-prefix=/usr --prefix=/usr > The configure output ends with this error: > configure: error: Missing required qpid libraries/headers. > Install package qpidd-devel or use --with-qpid-checkout > If I look in the include directory for broker header files, it is empty: > # ls /usr/include/qpid/ > Address.h amqp_0_10 clientconsole framing > InlineVector.h management Msg.h RangeSet.h sys > agent broker CommonImportExport.h Exception.h InlineAllocator.h > log messaging Options.h SessionId.h Url.h > # ls /usr/include/qpid/broker > # > So why didn't the Qpid install process place the header files in this > directory? When I use the qpidc-0.5 release tarball, it successfully > installs headers in to this directory. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6 Release
On 03/26/2010 03:54 PM, Alan Conway wrote: On 03/26/2010 10:57 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: +1 on the thanks. +1 from me too many thanks. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6 Release
+1 from Singapore :) Thanks for all your work Andrew. -- Martin Sent from my iPhone On 27 Mar 2010, at 03:54, Alan Conway wrote: On 03/26/2010 10:57 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: +1 on the thanks. +1 from me too Robbie. On 26 March 2010 14:37, Marnie McCormack wrote: Thanks to Andrew for getting our release out there. Regards, Marnie - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6 Release
On 03/26/2010 10:57 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: +1 on the thanks. +1 from me too Robbie. On 26 March 2010 14:37, Marnie McCormack wrote: Thanks to Andrew for getting our release out there. Regards, Marnie - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6 Release
+1 on the thanks. Robbie. On 26 March 2010 14:37, Marnie McCormack wrote: > Thanks to Andrew for getting our release out there. > > Regards, > Marnie > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
0.6 Release
Thanks to Andrew for getting our release out there. Regards, Marnie
RE: 0.6 now closed [Was: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote]
The current state of the 0.6-release branch should be it, the revision file in the distribution dir should confirm that and allow creation of a matching tag. Robbie > -Original Message- > From: Joshua Kramer [mailto:j...@globalherald.net] > Sent: 20 March 2010 22:09 > To: dev@qpid.apache.org > Subject: Re: 0.6 now closed [Was: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote] > > > Andrew, > > Is there a tag in SVN that corresponds to the to-be-releaed 0.6 > official? > > Thanks, > -Josh > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6 now closed [Was: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote]
Andrew, Is there a tag in SVN that corresponds to the to-be-releaed 0.6 official? Thanks, -Josh - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
0.6 now closed [Was: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote]
This vote is now closed: Results: Votes for: +10 Votes against: -0 So I declare that rc7 is now officially our 0.6 release. I will be repackaging and uploading later today. A Release announcement will follow. Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Andrew, Are you going to close the Vote and post the result? Carl. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
On 16 March 2010 16:53, Aidan Skinner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > >> * Simple majority required. >> * No veto votes >> * At least 3 + votes. >> >> I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC >> votes. >> >> * The vote will last a week closing 1800 GMT, Wednesday March 17 2010 * > > +1 > > I've smoke tested the java broker and client together and with their > 0.5 counterparts for interop, and run some over night stress tests > with just the 0.6 pieces. > > - Aidan > -- > Apache Qpid - AMQP, JMS, other messaging love http://qpid.apache.org > "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > +1 I checked the release out OS X and while the Java Broker start script is broken as always there is an easy work around. The JMX Console still works as expected so lets get this release out there. -- Martin Ritchie - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > * Simple majority required. > * No veto votes > * At least 3 + votes. > > I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC > votes. > > * The vote will last a week closing 1800 GMT, Wednesday March 17 2010 * +1 I've smoke tested the java broker and client together and with their 0.5 counterparts for interop, and run some over night stress tests with just the 0.6 pieces. - Aidan -- Apache Qpid - AMQP, JMS, other messaging love http://qpid.apache.org "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
+1 2010/3/11 Alan Conway : > On 03/11/2010 04:27 AM, Ján Sáreník wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:54:29AM +0100, Ján Sáreník wrote: >>> >>> 2. The error on cluster tests - I did not investigate much, but >>> what I know is that the environment I am compiling in is able >>> to cleanly compile, check and install current trunk (including >>> the cluster module). >> >> And if I compile without CPG, I am getting a 'make check' error which >> is fixed in trunk, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2441 >> > Annoying but minor, I say ship it! > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
On 03/11/2010 04:27 AM, Ján Sáreník wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:54:29AM +0100, Ján Sáreník wrote: 2. The error on cluster tests - I did not investigate much, but what I know is that the environment I am compiling in is able to cleanly compile, check and install current trunk (including the cluster module). And if I compile without CPG, I am getting a 'make check' error which is fixed in trunk, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2441 Annoying but minor, I say ship it! - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
On 03/11/2010 03:54 AM, Ján Sáreník wrote: Hi again! On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:08:29AM +0100, Ján Sáreník wrote: I do not think I have voting right (yet), but I am watching the evolution of qpid-0.6 since the first candidates and I am very thankful for such a team of developers who do things precisely. Ehm, excuse me, I really did not give it a try though I was watching the discussion regarding the previous candidates. In the attached log there are two things I would like to point out: 1. Released tarball should contain developer-generated configure script and not require the user to have all the autotools stuff. 2. The error on cluster tests - I did not investigate much, but what I know is that the environment I am compiling in is able to cleanly compile, check and install current trunk (including the cluster module). What I have here: fedora-release-12-2.noarch corosynclib-devel-1.2.0-1.fc12.x86_64 including the needed records in /etc/corosync/uidgid.d I can build & run those tests on rhel5 and fedora12. I just did configure --with-cpg. Not sure what is going on for your build. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
On 03/11/2010 03:54 AM, Ján Sáreník wrote: Hi again! On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:08:29AM +0100, Ján Sáreník wrote: I do not think I have voting right (yet), but I am watching the evolution of qpid-0.6 since the first candidates and I am very thankful for such a team of developers who do things precisely. Ehm, excuse me, I really did not give it a try though I was watching the discussion regarding the previous candidates. In the attached log there are two things I would like to point out: 1. Released tarball should contain developer-generated configure script and not require the user to have all the autotools stuff. That's in the C++ distribution: qpid-cpp-0.6rc7.tar.gz 2. The error on cluster tests - I did not investigate much, but what I know is that the environment I am compiling in is able to cleanly compile, check and install current trunk (including the cluster module). I did verify the cluster tests with 0.6, I'll double check... - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
+1 for release, based on previous testing. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:54:29AM +0100, Ján Sáreník wrote: > 1. Released tarball should contain developer-generated configure > script and not require the user to have all the autotools stuff. This is contained in qpid-cpp-0.6rc7.tar.gz though. Ján. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:54:29AM +0100, Ján Sáreník wrote: > 2. The error on cluster tests - I did not investigate much, but > what I know is that the environment I am compiling in is able > to cleanly compile, check and install current trunk (including > the cluster module). And if I compile without CPG, I am getting a 'make check' error which is fixed in trunk, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2441 Jasan + cd /home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7 + cd cpp + CXXFLAGS=' -DNDEBUG -O3' + ./configure --disable-static --without-cpg --without-help2man ...SNIP... + make -j 5 ...SNIP... + make check ...SNIP... make[2]: Entering directory `/home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/examples' make check-local make[3]: Entering directory `/home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/examples' ./verify_all /home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/.. /home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp "--no-module-dir --data-dir \"\" --auth no --load-module ../src/.libs/xml.so" == /home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/../cpp/examples/pub-sub/verify_python_cpp *** verify_python_cpp.out Thu Mar 11 10:19:56 2010 --- /home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/examples/pub-sub/verify_python_cpp.in Thu Mar 11 10:01:22 2010 *** *** 5,14 Declaring queue: usa Declaring queue: weather Listening for messages ... - Message: That's all, folks! from europe - Message: That's all, folks! from news - Message: That's all, folks! from usa - Message: That's all, folks! from weather Message: europe.news 0 from europe Message: europe.news 0 from news Message: europe.news 1 from europe --- 5,10 *** *** 29,34 --- 25,34 Message: europe.weather 3 from weather Message: europe.weather 4 from europe Message: europe.weather 4 from weather + Message: That's all, folks! from europe + Message: That's all, folks! from news + Message: That's all, folks! from usa + Message: That's all, folks! from weather Message: usa.news 0 from news Message: usa.news 0 from usa Message: usa.news 1 from news FAIL ...SNIP... == /home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/../python/examples/pubsub/verify *** verify.out Thu Mar 11 10:20:28 2010 --- /home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/python/examples/pubsub/verify.in Thu Mar 11 10:01:22 2010 *** *** 1,18 topic_publisher.py.out topic_subscriber.py.out | remove_uuid | sort - Messages on 'europe' queue: - Messages on 'news' queue: - Messages on 'usa' queue: - Messages on 'weather' queue: - Queues created - please start the topic producer - Subscribing local queue 'local_europe' to europe-' - Subscribing local queue 'local_news' to news-' - Subscribing local queue 'local_usa' to usa-' - Subscribing local queue 'local_weather' to weather-' - That's all, folks! - That's all, folks! - That's all, folks! - That's all, folks! europe.news 0 europe.news 0 europe.news 1 --- 1,5 *** *** 33,38 --- 20,38 europe.weather 3 europe.weather 4 europe.weather 4 + Messages on 'europe' queue: + Messages on 'news' queue: + Messages on 'usa' queue: + Messages on 'weather' queue: + Queues created - please start the topic producer + Subscribing local queue 'local_europe' to europe-' + Subscribing local queue 'local_news' to news-' + Subscribing local queue 'local_usa' to usa-' + Subscribing local queue 'local_weather' to weather-' + That's all, folks! + That's all, folks! + That's all, folks! + That's all, folks! usa.news 0 usa.news 0 usa.news 1 FAIL ...SNIP... make[3]: *** [check-local] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/examples' make[2]: *** [check-am] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/examples' make[1]: *** [check-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/examples' make: *** [check-recursive] Error 1 + exit 1 - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
And the attachment... + cd /home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7 + cd cpp + ./bootstrap + CXXFLAGS=' -DNDEBUG -O3' + ./configure --disable-static --with-cpg --without-help2man [... SNIP ...] + make -j 5 [... SNIP ...] + make check [... SNIP ...] 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% ||||||||||| Running 263 test cases... *** *** No errors detected PASS: unit_test 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% ||||||||||| Running 48 test cases... *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testReconnectSameSessionName": child was killed; pid: 29529; uid: 500; exit value: 9 ClusterFailover.cpp(61): last checkpoint *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testCoincidentErrors": child was killed; pid: 29577; uid: 500; exit value: 11 ClusterFailover.cpp(61): last checkpoint *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testConnectionKnownHosts": child was killed; pid: 30289; uid: 500; exit value: 9 cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testUpdateConsumers": child was killed; pid: 30341; uid: 500; exit value: 9 cluster_test.cpp(588): last checkpoint *** *** 4 failures detected in test suite "Master Test Suite" FAIL: run_cluster_test [... SNIP ...] 1 of 20 tests failed Please report to dev@qpid.apache.org make[3]: *** [check-TESTS] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/src/tests' make[2]: *** [check-am] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/src/tests' make[1]: *** [check-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jsarenik/qpid-0.6rc7/cpp/src' make: *** [check-recursive] Error 1 + exit 1 - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
Hi again! On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:08:29AM +0100, Ján Sáreník wrote: > I do not think I have voting right (yet), but I am watching the > evolution of qpid-0.6 since the first candidates and I am very > thankful for such a team of developers who do things precisely. Ehm, excuse me, I really did not give it a try though I was watching the discussion regarding the previous candidates. In the attached log there are two things I would like to point out: 1. Released tarball should contain developer-generated configure script and not require the user to have all the autotools stuff. 2. The error on cluster tests - I did not investigate much, but what I know is that the environment I am compiling in is able to cleanly compile, check and install current trunk (including the cluster module). What I have here: fedora-release-12-2.noarch corosynclib-devel-1.2.0-1.fc12.x86_64 including the needed records in /etc/corosync/uidgid.d That's my few cents. Sorry to be that late as I do not want to delay the release any more. Best regards, Jasan -- Red Hat Czech, MRG Quality Assurance Associate - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
Ahoj! On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:56:16PM -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > I've put up qpid-0.6rc7 for testing, you'll find it in the usual place: > > http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc7/ Is it noted somewhere, which revision of store should be used with this release of qpid? If it's not, please do so as I believe many users will appreciate that. I would suggest placing that info into the store section at http://qpidcomponents.org/download.html I do not think I have voting right (yet), but I am watching the evolution of qpid-0.6 since the first candidates and I am very thankful for such a team of developers who do things precisely. Good job. Best regards, Jasan -- Red Hat Czech, MRG Quality Assurance Associate - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
+1 On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Steve Huston wrote: > +1 > >> -Original Message- >> From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:astitc...@redhat.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:56 PM >> To: Qpid Dev List >> Subject: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote >> >> >> I've put up qpid-0.6rc7 for testing, you'll find it in the >> usual place: >> >> http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc7/ >> >> The subversion revision is: 917988 >> ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) >> >> RC7 is functionally identical to RC6 & RC5. RC4 was the last >> RC with a functional change. All the changes since have been >> to license or other non functional files. >> >> I'm calling a vote with the previous rules for releasing this >> repackaged as 0.6: >> >> ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) >> >> * Simple majority required. >> * No veto votes >> * At least 3 + votes. >> >> I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just >> "binding" PMC votes. >> >> * The vote will last a week closing 1800 GMT, Wednesday March >> 17 2010 * >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> - >> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >> Project: http://qpid.apache.org >> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >> >> > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
+1 > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:astitc...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:56 PM > To: Qpid Dev List > Subject: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote > > > I've put up qpid-0.6rc7 for testing, you'll find it in the > usual place: > > http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc7/ > > The subversion revision is: 917988 > ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) > > RC7 is functionally identical to RC6 & RC5. RC4 was the last > RC with a functional change. All the changes since have been > to license or other non functional files. > > I'm calling a vote with the previous rules for releasing this > repackaged as 0.6: > > ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) > > * Simple majority required. > * No veto votes > * At least 3 + votes. > > I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just > "binding" PMC votes. > > * The vote will last a week closing 1800 GMT, Wednesday March > 17 2010 * > > Andrew > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
+1 - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
+2 :-) On 03/10/2010 02:07 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: +1 (rat report on ruby package shows the previously omitted license is indeed present now) On 03/10/2010 06:58 PM, Alan Conway wrote: +1 On 03/10/2010 01:56 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: I've put up qpid-0.6rc7 for testing, you'll find it in the usual place: http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc7/ The subversion revision is: 917988 ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) RC7 is functionally identical to RC6& RC5. RC4 was the last RC with a functional change. All the changes since have been to license or other non functional files. I'm calling a vote with the previous rules for releasing this repackaged as 0.6: ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) * Simple majority required. * No veto votes * At least 3 + votes. I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC votes. * The vote will last a week closing 1800 GMT, Wednesday March 17 2010 * Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
+1 (rat report on ruby package shows the previously omitted license is indeed present now) On 03/10/2010 06:58 PM, Alan Conway wrote: +1 On 03/10/2010 01:56 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: I've put up qpid-0.6rc7 for testing, you'll find it in the usual place: http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc7/ The subversion revision is: 917988 ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) RC7 is functionally identical to RC6& RC5. RC4 was the last RC with a functional change. All the changes since have been to license or other non functional files. I'm calling a vote with the previous rules for releasing this repackaged as 0.6: ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) * Simple majority required. * No veto votes * At least 3 + votes. I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC votes. * The vote will last a week closing 1800 GMT, Wednesday March 17 2010 * Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
+1 On 03/10/2010 01:56 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: I've put up qpid-0.6rc7 for testing, you'll find it in the usual place: http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc7/ The subversion revision is: 917988 ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) RC7 is functionally identical to RC6& RC5. RC4 was the last RC with a functional change. All the changes since have been to license or other non functional files. I'm calling a vote with the previous rules for releasing this repackaged as 0.6: ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) * Simple majority required. * No veto votes * At least 3 + votes. I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC votes. * The vote will last a week closing 1800 GMT, Wednesday March 17 2010 * Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Final 0.6 release candidate and vote
I've put up qpid-0.6rc7 for testing, you'll find it in the usual place: http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc7/ The subversion revision is: 917988 ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) RC7 is functionally identical to RC6 & RC5. RC4 was the last RC with a functional change. All the changes since have been to license or other non functional files. I'm calling a vote with the previous rules for releasing this repackaged as 0.6: ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) * Simple majority required. * No veto votes * At least 3 + votes. I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC votes. * The vote will last a week closing 1800 GMT, Wednesday March 17 2010 * Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
I'd agree that we need a new RC to pick up the ruby license fix. Is this something you're able to do Andrew please ? Seems like we're inches from a release and it'd be great to get it out there. Marnie On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:05 +, Gordon Sim wrote: > > On 03/04/2010 07:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > >> I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be > released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon > already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so > I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern. > > > > > > You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not > > > voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other > > > people with a similar view then the release vote will fail. > > > > The point of the vote here is to ensure that there is consensus that the > > release can proceed, and no one has any concerns. > > Release votes are not about consensus, at least not in any unanimous > sense - they are votes with specific rules: majority vote; at least 3 > votes for; no vetoes. > > Andrew > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > >
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:05 +, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 03/04/2010 07:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > >> I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be > >> released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon > >> already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, > >> so I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern. > > > > You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not > > voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other > > people with a similar view then the release vote will fail. > > The point of the vote here is to ensure that there is consensus that the > release can proceed, and no one has any concerns. Release votes are not about consensus, at least not in any unanimous sense - they are votes with specific rules: majority vote; at least 3 votes for; no vetoes. Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On 03/04/2010 07:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote: I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern. You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other people with a similar view then the release vote will fail. The point of the vote here is to ensure that there is consensus that the release can proceed, and no one has any concerns. Robbie *has* raised a reasonable concern, and we should address it, especially since all it requires is a respin of the artefacts (as I understand it the release script automates a lot of the process anyway?). - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
> > It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the > other way on this, eg: > > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license > > > > "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text? > > > > Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text." > > That's interesting, it seems they have contradictory information on the > site. Or at least ambiguous information. > > Andrew > > I didn't notice (no pun intended) at the time, but the other quote is actually contradicted too: > As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version > 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says > "Apache projects MUST include correct NOTICE documents in > every distribution." The other page you linked has: "NOTICE file 0. Every Apache distribution should include a NOTICE file in the top directory, along with the standard LICENSE file." As such I don't think the website can be taken as definitive grounds to proceed or not, and recommend that if you are absolutely against running the script right now the one last time required to get rid of the issue, then we need to simply take this to legal-discuss to get a definitive answer from a human before distributing it. Robbie - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
There is 1 ruby source file that is not licenced in the RC but is on the branch, Gordon fixed it a couple days ago). I agree that the csproj files can be classed as not source. Robbie > -Original Message- > From: Rajith Attapattu [mailto:rajit...@gmail.com] > Sent: 04 March 2010 19:54 > To: dev@qpid.apache.org > Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really) > > +1 for the release. > The files in question are not really "source" files. > They are just project files for an IDE. > > Rajith. > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher > wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > >> I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be > released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as > Gordon already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been > several weeks, so I don't think that taking another few days at this > point is of concern. > > > > You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not > > voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other > > people with a similar view then the release vote will fail. > > > > Your comment about taking more time misses the point: I don't want to > > spend any more time on making vanishingly small changes to this > release. > > If you do then I will happily relinquish the 0.6 release manager > role. > > > >> > >> It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the > other way on this, eg: > >> > >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license > >> > >> "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text? > >> > >> Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text." > > > > That's interesting, it seems they have contradictory information on > the > > site. Or at least ambiguous information. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > - > > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Rajith Attapattu > Red Hat > http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
+1 for the release. The files in question are not really "source" files. They are just project files for an IDE. Rajith. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be >> released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon >> already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so >> I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern. > > You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not > voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other > people with a similar view then the release vote will fail. > > Your comment about taking more time misses the point: I don't want to > spend any more time on making vanishingly small changes to this release. > If you do then I will happily relinquish the 0.6 release manager role. > >> >> It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the other >> way on this, eg: >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license >> >> "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text? >> >> Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text." > > That's interesting, it seems they have contradictory information on the > site. Or at least ambiguous information. > > Andrew > > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released > without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did > a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think > that taking another few days at this point is of concern. You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other people with a similar view then the release vote will fail. Your comment about taking more time misses the point: I don't want to spend any more time on making vanishingly small changes to this release. If you do then I will happily relinquish the 0.6 release manager role. > > It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the other > way on this, eg: > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license > > "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text? > > Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text." That's interesting, it seems they have contradictory information on the site. Or at least ambiguous information. Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
> As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6. > > So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released. > > I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion > of license headers in all our files. Right. > My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright > Notice Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html > ) is that not having them is not a blocker to a release: > > In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" > section 2. It says: "Each source file should include the > following license header". I interpret the use of the word > "should" to mean non mandatory, but strongly recommended. > > As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version > 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says > "Apache projects MUST include correct NOTICE documents in > every distribution." I agree with you - thanks for digging this info out. > Given all this (and that I'm frankly getting fed up of being > responsible for a release that hasn't changed any functional > part in nearly 2 > months) I would like one more positive vote so we can release > 0.6 and get on with preparing for 0.8. > > I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted for the > release (even on the basis that they tested a functionally > equivalent previous candidate). Good point. I vote +1 and also opened QPID-2431 to note that this should be fixed by the next release. -Steve - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern. It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the other way on this, eg: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text? Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text." Also, on the page you linked http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers "Why is a licensing header necessary? License headers allow someone examining the file to know the terms for the work, even when it is distributed without the rest of the distribution. Without a licensing notice, it must be assumed that the author has reserved all rights, including the right to copy, modify, and redistribute." Robbie > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:astitc...@redhat.com] > Sent: 04 March 2010 17:17 > To: dev@qpid.apache.org > Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really) > > On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > Blah blah blah > > > > I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I > > will total the votes. > > As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6. > > So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released. > > I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion of > license > headers in all our files. > > My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice > Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ) is that not > having them is not a blocker to a release: > > In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section 2. > It says: "Each source file should include the following license > header". > I interpret the use of the word "should" to mean non mandatory, but > strongly recommended. > > As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version > 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says "Apache projects > MUST include correct NOTICE documents in every distribution." > > RFC 2119 (which is where I go for the meaning of these words in > technical requirements) says of "should" that there "may exist valid > reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item". > > Given all this (and that I'm frankly getting fed up of being > responsible > for a release that hasn't changed any functional part in nearly 2 > months) I would like one more positive vote so we can release 0.6 and > get on with preparing for 0.8. > > I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted for the release (even > on > the basis that they tested a functionally equivalent previous > candidate). > > Andrew > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On 03/04/2010 12:31 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: On 03/04/2010 05:16 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote: Blah blah blah I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I will total the votes. As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6. So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released. I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion of license headers in all our files. My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ) is that not having them is not a blocker to a release: In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section 2. It says: "Each source file should include the following license header". I interpret the use of the word "should" to mean non mandatory, but strongly recommended. As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says "Apache projects MUST include correct NOTICE documents in every distribution." RFC 2119 (which is where I go for the meaning of these words in technical requirements) says of "should" that there "may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item". On the basis of your argument and citations above, I am happy to vote +1 on this candidate. My only concern was the RAT issues, everything else looked good. ack, I was assuming another build, but based on that +1. Carl. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On 03/04/2010 05:16 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote: Blah blah blah I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I will total the votes. As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6. So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released. I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion of license headers in all our files. My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ) is that not having them is not a blocker to a release: In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section 2. It says: "Each source file should include the following license header". I interpret the use of the word "should" to mean non mandatory, but strongly recommended. As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says "Apache projects MUST include correct NOTICE documents in every distribution." RFC 2119 (which is where I go for the meaning of these words in technical requirements) says of "should" that there "may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item". On the basis of your argument and citations above, I am happy to vote +1 on this candidate. My only concern was the RAT issues, everything else looked good. Given all this (and that I'm frankly getting fed up of being responsible for a release that hasn't changed any functional part in nearly 2 months) I would like one more positive vote so we can release 0.6 and get on with preparing for 0.8. I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted for the release (even on the basis that they tested a functionally equivalent previous candidate). Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > Blah blah blah > > I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I > will total the votes. As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6. So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released. I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion of license headers in all our files. My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ) is that not having them is not a blocker to a release: In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section 2. It says: "Each source file should include the following license header". I interpret the use of the word "should" to mean non mandatory, but strongly recommended. As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says "Apache projects MUST include correct NOTICE documents in every distribution." RFC 2119 (which is where I go for the meaning of these words in technical requirements) says of "should" that there "may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item". Given all this (and that I'm frankly getting fed up of being responsible for a release that hasn't changed any functional part in nearly 2 months) I would like one more positive vote so we can release 0.6 and get on with preparing for 0.8. I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted for the release (even on the basis that they tested a functionally equivalent previous candidate). Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Steve Huston wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:20 AM >> To: dev@qpid.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really) >> ... >> > On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a >> > licence, and if most of them already include it then it >> seems sensible >> > to do the rest and finish the job. >> >> Seems sensible. Is someone willing to volunteer to do that? > > Who's working on the .NET client these days? Has it been tested? > >> Following >> Rajiths comments I'm not sure what the right approach is. There are >> certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top >> of the file - do these cause problems for MSVC? > > No, as long as the inserted XML doesn't step on a special marker char > which may be at the very start of the file. I checked a few of the > dotnet csproj files and they didn't have that marker anyway, so there > should be no problem dropping the license into an XML comment. Just make > sure to try a build before committing and things should be fine. I have no issues adding the license header, but I don't have a way of testing it out. Last time I did it, I had stepped on the almigty special marker and Steve had to work it out. So I believe somebody from the .NET project needs to do this and verify that everything is fine. > -Steve > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
> -Original Message- > From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:20 AM > To: dev@qpid.apache.org > Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really) > ... > > On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a > > licence, and if most of them already include it then it > seems sensible > > to do the rest and finish the job. > > Seems sensible. Is someone willing to volunteer to do that? Who's working on the .NET client these days? Has it been tested? > Following > Rajiths comments I'm not sure what the right approach is. There are > certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top > of the file - do these cause problems for MSVC? No, as long as the inserted XML doesn't step on a special marker char which may be at the very start of the file. I checked a few of the dotnet csproj files and they didn't have that marker anyway, so there should be no problem dropping the license into an XML comment. Just make sure to try a build before committing and things should be fine. -Steve - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
> There are > certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top of the file > - do these cause problems for MSVC? These C# project files are just XML. Putting the Apache license in an XML comment at the top of the file will not adversely affect MSVC. Cliff -Original Message- From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:20 AM To: dev@qpid.apache.org Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really) On 03/02/2010 09:31 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > I believe this means we must fix these and roll another RC before we > can proceed with a vote, correct? I believe we have to fix the missing license on the source code at a minimum. I have checked in that change as r917988. > On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a > licence, and if most of them already include it then it seems sensible > to do the rest and finish the job. Seems sensible. Is someone willing to volunteer to do that? Following Rajiths comments I'm not sure what the right approach is. There are certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top of the file - do these cause problems for MSVC? > Robbie > > On 26 February 2010 15:25, Gordon Sim wrote: > > > >> >> It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker run, >> python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks ok except >> for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is code and it >> doesn't have the license at the top. >> >> (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't have >> this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may not be >> required?) >> >> - >> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >> Project: http://qpid.apache.org >> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >> >> > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On 03/02/2010 09:31 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: I believe this means we must fix these and roll another RC before we can proceed with a vote, correct? I believe we have to fix the missing license on the source code at a minimum. I have checked in that change as r917988. On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a licence, and if most of them already include it then it seems sensible to do the rest and finish the job. Seems sensible. Is someone willing to volunteer to do that? Following Rajiths comments I'm not sure what the right approach is. There are certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top of the file - do these cause problems for MSVC? Robbie On 26 February 2010 15:25, Gordon Sim wrote: It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker run, python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks ok except for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is code and it doesn't have the license at the top. (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't have this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may not be required?) - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
I believe this means we must fix these and roll another RC before we can proceed with a vote, correct? On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a licence, and if most of them already include it then it seems sensible to do the rest and finish the job. Robbie On 26 February 2010 15:25, Gordon Sim wrote: > > It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker run, > python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks ok except > for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is code and it > doesn't have the license at the top. > > (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't have > this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may not be > required?) > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: > > On 02/23/2010 10:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > >> > >> I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote > >> immediately: > >> > >> Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the > Apache rules > >> on licenses now have license texts. > >> > >> The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if > >> you tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you should have > every reason > >> to vote > >> +1 again! > >> > >> Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release > >> candidate > >> (0.6rc6) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the > identical source > >> bits as rc6 except changing the name. > >> > >> You should find qpid-0.6rc6 at: > >> http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc6 > >> > >> The subversion revision is: 909632 > >> ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) > >> > >> The rules for a release vote are: > >> ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) > >> > >> * Simple majority required. > >> * No veto votes > >> * At least 3 + votes. > >> > >> I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just > "binding" PMC > >> votes. > >> > >> I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At > that point I > >> will total the votes. > >> > >> Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to > >> find the votes. > >> > >> It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you > >> should have a reason to think that the release is good > enough - I'd > >> suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it. > > > > It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the > c++ broker > > run, python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also > > looks ok except for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is > tiny, but > > it is code and it doesn't have the license at the top. > Oh dear, looks like I missed it. > > > (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that > also don't > > have this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but > these may > > not be > > required?) > > If I add the license text to those csproj files, VC++ will > complain. I added it last time around and steve had to remove them. I did??? It's a problem if the license text is first in the file; I remember having to move it down after the first line (which has special characters in it that Windows or MSVC use to detect the project version). -Steve - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 02/23/2010 10:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: >> >> I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote >> immediately: >> >> Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the Apache rules on >> licenses now have license texts. >> >> The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if you >> tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you should have every reason to vote >> +1 again! >> >> Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate >> (0.6rc6) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source >> bits as rc6 except changing the name. >> >> You should find qpid-0.6rc6 at: >> http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc6 >> >> The subversion revision is: 909632 >> ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) >> >> The rules for a release vote are: >> ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) >> >> * Simple majority required. >> * No veto votes >> * At least 3 + votes. >> >> I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC >> votes. >> >> I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I >> will total the votes. >> >> Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find >> the votes. >> >> It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you >> should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd >> suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it. > > It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker run, > python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks ok except > for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is code and it > doesn't have the license at the top. Oh dear, looks like I missed it. > (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't have > this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may not be > required?) If I add the license text to those csproj files, VC++ will complain. I added it last time around and steve had to remove them. > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On 02/23/2010 10:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote immediately: Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the Apache rules on licenses now have license texts. The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if you tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you should have every reason to vote +1 again! Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate (0.6rc6) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source bits as rc6 except changing the name. You should find qpid-0.6rc6 at: http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc6 The subversion revision is: 909632 ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) The rules for a release vote are: ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) * Simple majority required. * No veto votes * At least 3 + votes. I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC votes. I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I will total the votes. Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find the votes. It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it. It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker run, python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks ok except for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is code and it doesn't have the license at the top. (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't have this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may not be required?) - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
+1 for shipping it! I tested failover_soak ( in cpp/src/tests ) in a 1 M message cluster failover test against a 4-cluster. This test involved about 20 broker-kills. It was happy. ( No dropped messages. ) I also used the first version of Shackleton ( a testing tool I'm working on ) to generate and run 1080 separate tests of messaging topology. i.e. different numbers of queues, receivers per queue, routing keys per queue, and senders per key. All the Shackleton tests passed -- the number of messages at each receiver were as predicted. Also, in all tests with multiple receivers per queue, allocation fairness was reasonable -- average disparity across all tests of 0.9%, maximum disparity of 10%. So I say, ship it! On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote > immediately: > > Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the Apache rules on > licenses now have license texts. > > The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if you > tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you should have every reason to vote > +1 again! > > Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate > (0.6rc6) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source > bits as rc6 except changing the name. > > You should find qpid-0.6rc6 at: > http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc6 > > The subversion revision is: 909632 > ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) > > The rules for a release vote are: > ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) > > * Simple majority required. > * No veto votes > * At least 3 + votes. > > I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC > votes. > > I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I > will total the votes. > > Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find > the votes. > > It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you > should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd > suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Alan Conway wrote: On 02/23/2010 05:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote immediately: +1 with a release note. Tested: - C++ build & make check OK. - Start a cluster - Run some python management tools (need release note on installing them, below) == Release note (Rafi can you check this is correct?) To install the python tools you need to download the complete distribution tarball qpid-0.6rc6.tar.gz (rather than the python-only tarball qpid-python-0.6rc6.tar.gz) and do the following as root: - cd qpid-0.6rc6/python - make install - cd ../specs - cp amqp.0-10-qpid-errata.xml amqp.0-10.dtd /share/amqp == The specs directory is included in the python release artifact, so you don't need to download the complete distribution tarball, however these instructions will work either way. Also if you want to use the 0-8/9 version of the client you'll need the other spec files as well, so I would cp *.xml and *.dtd. --Rafael - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On 02/23/2010 05:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote immediately: +1 with a release note. Tested: - C++ build & make check OK. - Start a cluster - Run some python management tools (need release note on installing them, below) == Release note (Rafi can you check this is correct?) To install the python tools you need to download the complete distribution tarball qpid-0.6rc6.tar.gz (rather than the python-only tarball qpid-python-0.6rc6.tar.gz) and do the following as root: - cd qpid-0.6rc6/python - make install - cd ../specs - cp amqp.0-10-qpid-errata.xml amqp.0-10.dtd /share/amqp == - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6 status? (was Re: Vote for 0.6 Release)
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 09:16 +, Marnie McCormack wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > What's the plan ? No plan especially: upload next rc; hope it hasn't got any blocking problems; If vote passes, release; repeat if necessary. A - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote immediately: Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the Apache rules on licenses now have license texts. The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if you tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you should have every reason to vote +1 again! Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate (0.6rc6) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source bits as rc6 except changing the name. You should find qpid-0.6rc6 at: http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc6 The subversion revision is: 909632 ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) The rules for a release vote are: ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) * Simple majority required. * No veto votes * At least 3 + votes. I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC votes. I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I will total the votes. Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find the votes. It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it. Thanks Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6 status? (was Re: Vote for 0.6 Release)
Hi Andrew, What's the plan ? Marnie On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Marnie McCormack < marnie.mccorm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Wondered if theres a revised plan for getting 0.6 release out now ? > > Thanks, > Marnie > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: >> > On 02/11/2010 02:51 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: >> >> >> >> At this point I'm loosing the will to carry out the release manager >> job. >> >> So I'll take suggestions/analysis how to understand/fix the licensing >> >> issue. >> > >> > Did Rajith fix this (I saw several commits from him that seemed to >> address >> > the issue)? >> >> Yes I have fixed the licensing headers and added the updated the RAT >> output to QPID-2404 >> I also updated the Qpid trunk as well. >> >> >> I especially think it's extremely poor that we could have even accepted >> >> this number of files into qpid without licenses - how are we going to >> >> ensure that it doesn't remain an ongoing problem? >> > >> > As Rajith suggested I think we should at a minimum run RAT when/before >> > creating the first RC. That will avoid late disappointments. >> > >> > - >> > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >> > Project: http://qpid.apache.org >> > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Rajith Attapattu >> Red Hat >> http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ >> >> - >> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >> Project: http://qpid.apache.org >> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >> >> >
[jira] Resolved: (QPID-2414) Generated Makefile fails to install broker header files on 0.6-release branch.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2414?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Andrew Stitcher resolved QPID-2414. --- Resolution: Not A Problem Qpid isn't meant to install headers for internal code. The 0.5 version installed more headers than client apps needed, this has been progressively fixed, and 0.6 installs fewer. The issue here is that the --with-qpid-prefix isn't the option to use. You need to use --with-qpid-checkout & --with-qpid-build. when building the store > Generated Makefile fails to install broker header files on 0.6-release branch. > -- > > Key: QPID-2414 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2414 > Project: Qpid > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Build Tools >Affects Versions: 0.6 > Environment: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 (etch); automake 1:1.10+nogfdl-1; > libtool 1.5.24-2~bpo40+1; gawk 1:3.1.5.dfsg-4; pkg-config 0.21-1; groff > 1.18.1.1-21~bpo40+1 >Reporter: Inoshiro Linden > > The install process fails to install broker-related header files into the > system. The process used was: > # apt-get install -y git-core subversion build-essential make uuid-dev > automake libtool gawk pkg-config groff libapr1-dev libaprutil1-dev > libboost-dev libboost-program-options-dev libboost-filesystem-dev > libboost-regex-dev ruby libnss3-dev libaio-dev libdb4.4++-dev python > libboost-test-dev > # git clone git://git.apache.org/qpid.git qpid > ... Install corosync-1.0.0 from > ftp://ftp%40corosync%2Eorg:downlo...@corosync.org/downloads/corosync-1.0.0/corosync-1.0.0.tar.gz > ... Note I had to use this configure command to get corosync to > build/install: FLAGS='-pthread -D_GNU_SOURCE' ./configure > # cd qpid/qpid/cpp > # ./bootstrap > # ./configure --prefix=/usr > # make > # make install > At this point I try to build the persistence persistence module: > # cd ../../.. > # svn co -r 3793 'http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/rhmessaging/store/trunk/cpp' > qpid-persistence-cpp > # cd qpid-persistence-cpp > # ./bootstrap > # ./configure --with-qpid-prefix=/usr --prefix=/usr > The configure output ends with this error: > configure: error: Missing required qpid libraries/headers. > Install package qpidd-devel or use --with-qpid-checkout > If I look in the include directory for broker header files, it is empty: > # ls /usr/include/qpid/ > Address.h amqp_0_10 clientconsole framing > InlineVector.h management Msg.h RangeSet.h sys > agent broker CommonImportExport.h Exception.h InlineAllocator.h > log messaging Options.h SessionId.h Url.h > # ls /usr/include/qpid/broker > # > So why didn't the Qpid install process place the header files in this > directory? When I use the qpidc-0.5 release tarball, it successfully > installs headers in to this directory. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6 status? (was Re: Vote for 0.6 Release)
Hi Andrew, Wondered if theres a revised plan for getting 0.6 release out now ? Thanks, Marnie On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: > > On 02/11/2010 02:51 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > >> > >> At this point I'm loosing the will to carry out the release manager job. > >> So I'll take suggestions/analysis how to understand/fix the licensing > >> issue. > > > > Did Rajith fix this (I saw several commits from him that seemed to > address > > the issue)? > > Yes I have fixed the licensing headers and added the updated the RAT > output to QPID-2404 > I also updated the Qpid trunk as well. > > >> I especially think it's extremely poor that we could have even accepted > >> this number of files into qpid without licenses - how are we going to > >> ensure that it doesn't remain an ongoing problem? > > > > As Rajith suggested I think we should at a minimum run RAT when/before > > creating the first RC. That will avoid late disappointments. > > > > - > > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Rajith Attapattu > Red Hat > http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > >
[jira] Created: (QPID-2414) Generated Makefile fails to install broker header files on 0.6-release branch.
Generated Makefile fails to install broker header files on 0.6-release branch. -- Key: QPID-2414 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2414 Project: Qpid Issue Type: Bug Components: Build Tools Affects Versions: 0.6 Environment: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 (etch); automake 1:1.10+nogfdl-1; libtool 1.5.24-2~bpo40+1; gawk 1:3.1.5.dfsg-4; pkg-config 0.21-1; groff 1.18.1.1-21~bpo40+1 Reporter: Inoshiro Linden The install process fails to install broker-related header files into the system. The process used was: # apt-get install -y git-core subversion build-essential make uuid-dev automake libtool gawk pkg-config groff libapr1-dev libaprutil1-dev libboost-dev libboost-program-options-dev libboost-filesystem-dev libboost-regex-dev ruby libnss3-dev libaio-dev libdb4.4++-dev python libboost-test-dev # git clone git://git.apache.org/qpid.git qpid ... Install corosync-1.0.0 from ftp://ftp%40corosync%2Eorg:downlo...@corosync.org/downloads/corosync-1.0.0/corosync-1.0.0.tar.gz ... Note I had to use this configure command to get corosync to build/install: FLAGS='-pthread -D_GNU_SOURCE' ./configure # cd qpid/qpid/cpp # ./bootstrap # ./configure --prefix=/usr # make # make install At this point I try to build the persistence persistence module: # cd ../../.. # svn co -r 3793 'http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/rhmessaging/store/trunk/cpp' qpid-persistence-cpp # cd qpid-persistence-cpp # ./bootstrap # ./configure --with-qpid-prefix=/usr --prefix=/usr The configure output ends with this error: configure: error: Missing required qpid libraries/headers. Install package qpidd-devel or use --with-qpid-checkout If I look in the include directory for broker header files, it is empty: # ls /usr/include/qpid/ Address.h amqp_0_10 clientconsole framing InlineVector.h management Msg.h RangeSet.h sys agent broker CommonImportExport.h Exception.h InlineAllocator.h log messaging Options.h SessionId.h Url.h # ls /usr/include/qpid/broker # So why didn't the Qpid install process place the header files in this directory? When I use the qpidc-0.5 release tarball, it successfully installs headers in to this directory. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6 status? (was Re: Vote for 0.6 Release)
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 02/11/2010 02:51 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: >> >> At this point I'm loosing the will to carry out the release manager job. >> So I'll take suggestions/analysis how to understand/fix the licensing >> issue. > > Did Rajith fix this (I saw several commits from him that seemed to address > the issue)? Yes I have fixed the licensing headers and added the updated the RAT output to QPID-2404 I also updated the Qpid trunk as well. >> I especially think it's extremely poor that we could have even accepted >> this number of files into qpid without licenses - how are we going to >> ensure that it doesn't remain an ongoing problem? > > As Rajith suggested I think we should at a minimum run RAT when/before > creating the first RC. That will avoid late disappointments. > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
0.6 status? (was Re: Vote for 0.6 Release)
On 02/11/2010 02:51 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: At this point I'm loosing the will to carry out the release manager job. So I'll take suggestions/analysis how to understand/fix the licensing issue. Did Rajith fix this (I saw several commits from him that seemed to address the issue)? I especially think it's extremely poor that we could have even accepted this number of files into qpid without licenses - how are we going to ensure that it doesn't remain an ongoing problem? As Rajith suggested I think we should at a minimum run RAT when/before creating the first RC. That will avoid late disappointments. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r909229 [5/5] - in /qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid: cpp/examples/ cpp/src/qpid/framing/ cpp/src/tests/ cpp/src/tests/cluster_test_scripts/ dotnet/client-010/client/client/ dotnet/cli
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > All the shell scripts appear to have received a double licence addition > (example below) Damn ! Ok I will fix that. > Also, since the branch is fairly recent the commit should hopefully apply > cleanly to trunk in all but the rarest cases, so that is something we should > probably do now to make the process easier for the next release. Yep I was planning to do that today. > Robbie > >> -Original Message- >> From: raj...@apache.org [mailto:raj...@apache.org] >> Sent: 12 February 2010 04:39 >> To: comm...@qpid.apache.org >> Subject: svn commit: r909229 [5/5] - in /qpid/branches/0.6- >> release/qpid: cpp/examples/ cpp/src/qpid/framing/ cpp/src/tests/ >> cpp/src/tests/cluster_test_scripts/ dotnet/client-010/client/client/ >> dotnet/client-010/client/transport/ dotnet/client-010/demo/Propertie... >> > > > >> Modified: qpid/branches/0.6- >> release/qpid/java/perftests/etc/scripts/extractResults.sh >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/qpid/branches/0.6- >> release/qpid/java/perftests/etc/scripts/extractResults.sh?rev=909229&r1 >> =909228&r2=909229&view=diff >> === >> === >> --- qpid/branches/0.6- >> release/qpid/java/perftests/etc/scripts/extractResults.sh (original) >> +++ qpid/branches/0.6- >> release/qpid/java/perftests/etc/scripts/extractResults.sh Fri Feb 12 >> 04:38:52 2010 >> @@ -1,5 +1,47 @@ >> +# >> +# >> +# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one >> +# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file >> +# distributed with this work for additional information >> +# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file >> +# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the >> +# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance >> +# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at >> +# >> +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 >> +# >> +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, >> +# software distributed under the License is distributed on an >> +# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY >> +# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the >> +# specific language governing permissions and limitations >> +# under the License. >> +# >> +# >> + >> #!/bin/bash +x >> # >> +# >> +# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one >> +# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file >> +# distributed with this work for additional information >> +# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file >> +# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the >> +# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance >> +# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at >> +# >> +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 >> +# >> +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, >> +# software distributed under the License is distributed on an >> +# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY >> +# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the >> +# specific language governing permissions and limitations >> +# under the License. >> +# >> +# >> + >> +# >> # Process a given directory (defaults to '.') and provide a list of >> the tests run so >> # identification of any failures can be seen. >> # >> > > > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: svn commit: r909229 [5/5] - in /qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid: cpp/examples/ cpp/src/qpid/framing/ cpp/src/tests/ cpp/src/tests/cluster_test_scripts/ dotnet/client-010/client/client/ dotnet/clien
All the shell scripts appear to have received a double licence addition (example below) Also, since the branch is fairly recent the commit should hopefully apply cleanly to trunk in all but the rarest cases, so that is something we should probably do now to make the process easier for the next release. Robbie > -Original Message- > From: raj...@apache.org [mailto:raj...@apache.org] > Sent: 12 February 2010 04:39 > To: comm...@qpid.apache.org > Subject: svn commit: r909229 [5/5] - in /qpid/branches/0.6- > release/qpid: cpp/examples/ cpp/src/qpid/framing/ cpp/src/tests/ > cpp/src/tests/cluster_test_scripts/ dotnet/client-010/client/client/ > dotnet/client-010/client/transport/ dotnet/client-010/demo/Propertie... > > Modified: qpid/branches/0.6- > release/qpid/java/perftests/etc/scripts/extractResults.sh > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/qpid/branches/0.6- > release/qpid/java/perftests/etc/scripts/extractResults.sh?rev=909229&r1 > =909228&r2=909229&view=diff > ======= > === > --- qpid/branches/0.6- > release/qpid/java/perftests/etc/scripts/extractResults.sh (original) > +++ qpid/branches/0.6- > release/qpid/java/perftests/etc/scripts/extractResults.sh Fri Feb 12 > 04:38:52 2010 > @@ -1,5 +1,47 @@ > +# > +# > +# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one > +# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file > +# distributed with this work for additional information > +# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file > +# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the > +# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance > +# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at > +# > +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > +# > +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, > +# software distributed under the License is distributed on an > +# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY > +# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the > +# specific language governing permissions and limitations > +# under the License. > +# > +# > + > #!/bin/bash +x > # > +# > +# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one > +# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file > +# distributed with this work for additional information > +# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file > +# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the > +# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance > +# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at > +# > +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > +# > +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, > +# software distributed under the License is distributed on an > +# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY > +# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the > +# specific language governing permissions and limitations > +# under the License. > +# > +# > + > +# > # Process a given directory (defaults to '.') and provide a list of > the tests run so > # identification of any failures can be seen. > # > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote: > On 02/11/2010 09:51 AM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 10:33 +, Andrew Stitcher wrote: >> >>> >>> ... >>> >> >> >>> >>> I also propose to run the vote until Tue 9 Feb 2010. At that point I >>> will total the votes. >>> >> >> Well it's now, Thurs 11 Feb, and I've had only +2. So the vote is not >> passed. >> >> I don't think this could have been released in any case as there appear >> to be a very large number of files without the correct licensing text in >> them. The output from the RAT tool is really too voluminous at present >> for me to go through it file by file and figure out what's going on. >> There must be 200-300 files highlighted there. >> >> At this point I'm loosing the will to carry out the release manager job. >> So I'll take suggestions/analysis how to understand/fix the licensing >> issue. >> >> I especially think it's extremely poor that we could have even accepted >> this number of files into qpid without licenses - how are we going to >> ensure that it doesn't remain an ongoing problem? >> >> RAT output: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~robbie/qpid/0.6/0.6rc5_rat_output.txt >> >> > > > > I don't believe .in & verify flies etc are an issues, and can be ignored. > However files like We can ignore the verify files. > > ./java/client/src/test/java/org/apache/qpid/client/message/AbstractJMSMessageTest.java > ./java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/thread/DefaultThreadFactory.java > ./java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/thread/RealtimeThreadFactory.java > ./java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/thread/ThreadFactory.java > ./java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/thread/Threading.java > ./java/common/src/test/java/org/apache/qpid/codec/AMQDecoderTest.java > ./java/common/src/test/java/org/apache/qpid/codec/MockAMQVersionAwareProtocolSession.java > ./java/common/src/test/java/org/apache/qpid/thread/ThreadFactoryTest.java > I will fix the java files today. > ./cpp/src/qpid/framing/Blob.h > ./cpp/src/qpid/framing/BodyHolder.cpp > ./cpp/src/qpid/framing/BodyHolder.h > ./cpp/src/tests/Blob.cpp > > > are most likely an issue... I see about 20 or so files in the list that > needs to be fixed. > > > Can Everyone please take some time and scrup this a bit so we can get 0.6 > out. > > Let's try put the effort in over the next two days and get this out. > Carl. > > > > > > > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release
On 02/11/2010 09:51 AM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 10:33 +, Andrew Stitcher wrote: ... I also propose to run the vote until Tue 9 Feb 2010. At that point I will total the votes. Well it's now, Thurs 11 Feb, and I've had only +2. So the vote is not passed. I don't think this could have been released in any case as there appear to be a very large number of files without the correct licensing text in them. The output from the RAT tool is really too voluminous at present for me to go through it file by file and figure out what's going on. There must be 200-300 files highlighted there. At this point I'm loosing the will to carry out the release manager job. So I'll take suggestions/analysis how to understand/fix the licensing issue. I especially think it's extremely poor that we could have even accepted this number of files into qpid without licenses - how are we going to ensure that it doesn't remain an ongoing problem? RAT output: http://people.apache.org/~robbie/qpid/0.6/0.6rc5_rat_output.txt I don't believe .in & verify flies etc are an issues, and can be ignored. However files like ./java/client/src/test/java/org/apache/qpid/client/message/AbstractJMSMessageTest.java ./java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/thread/DefaultThreadFactory.java ./java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/thread/RealtimeThreadFactory.java ./java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/thread/ThreadFactory.java ./java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/thread/Threading.java ./java/common/src/test/java/org/apache/qpid/codec/AMQDecoderTest.java ./java/common/src/test/java/org/apache/qpid/codec/MockAMQVersionAwareProtocolSession.java ./java/common/src/test/java/org/apache/qpid/thread/ThreadFactoryTest.java ./cpp/src/qpid/framing/Blob.h ./cpp/src/qpid/framing/BodyHolder.cpp ./cpp/src/qpid/framing/BodyHolder.h ./cpp/src/tests/Blob.cpp are most likely an issue... I see about 20 or so files in the list that needs to be fixed. Can Everyone please take some time and scrup this a bit so we can get 0.6 out. Let's try put the effort in over the next two days and get this out. Carl. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 10:33 +, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > ... > I also propose to run the vote until Tue 9 Feb 2010. At that point I > will total the votes. Well it's now, Thurs 11 Feb, and I've had only +2. So the vote is not passed. I don't think this could have been released in any case as there appear to be a very large number of files without the correct licensing text in them. The output from the RAT tool is really too voluminous at present for me to go through it file by file and figure out what's going on. There must be 200-300 files highlighted there. At this point I'm loosing the will to carry out the release manager job. So I'll take suggestions/analysis how to understand/fix the licensing issue. I especially think it's extremely poor that we could have even accepted this number of files into qpid without licenses - how are we going to ensure that it doesn't remain an ongoing problem? RAT output: http://people.apache.org/~robbie/qpid/0.6/0.6rc5_rat_output.txt Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
+1 for rc5 [ was Re: Management problem with rc5? Re: Vote for 0.6 Release]
On 02/09/2010 08:41 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: On 02/08/2010 10:11 PM, Alan Conway wrote: I built & installed the cpp stuff, ran some C++ clients, kicked the tires on the cluster, looks good Then I installed the python tools and... nothing works. qpid-config, qpid-stat, they just sit there till they time out. qpid-tool connects but never gets out of the "waiting for periodic update" state. With trace logging on I can see the clients do connect and send their initial commands, but then they get stuck waiting I think for management events that don't seem to arrive, although the periodic management log messages are there alright. Can someone try this out and confirm that I'm doing something monumentally stupid and it all really works just fine? It works for me. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org Works for me too. I had multiple versions installed on my box with predictably bad results. RC5 looks good to me, +1. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Management problem with rc5? Re: Vote for 0.6 Release
It didn't work for me until I updated my Python to 2.6. I created QPID-2356 to recommend reporting an unsupported Python version... On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 02/08/2010 10:11 PM, Alan Conway wrote: > >> I built & installed the cpp stuff, ran some C++ clients, kicked the >> tires on the cluster, looks good >> >> Then I installed the python tools and... nothing works. qpid-config, >> qpid-stat, they just sit there till they time out. qpid-tool connects >> but never gets out of the "waiting for periodic update" state. >> With trace logging on I can see the clients do connect and send their >> initial commands, but then they get stuck waiting I think for management >> events that don't seem to arrive, although the periodic management log >> messages are there alright. >> >> Can someone try this out and confirm that I'm doing something >> monumentally stupid and it all really works just fine? >> > > It works for me. > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > >
Re: Management problem with rc5? Re: Vote for 0.6 Release
On 02/08/2010 10:11 PM, Alan Conway wrote: I built & installed the cpp stuff, ran some C++ clients, kicked the tires on the cluster, looks good Then I installed the python tools and... nothing works. qpid-config, qpid-stat, they just sit there till they time out. qpid-tool connects but never gets out of the "waiting for periodic update" state. With trace logging on I can see the clients do connect and send their initial commands, but then they get stuck waiting I think for management events that don't seem to arrive, although the periodic management log messages are there alright. Can someone try this out and confirm that I'm doing something monumentally stupid and it all really works just fine? It works for me. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Management problem with rc5? Re: Vote for 0.6 Release
I built & installed the cpp stuff, ran some C++ clients, kicked the tires on the cluster, looks good Then I installed the python tools and... nothing works. qpid-config, qpid-stat, they just sit there till they time out. qpid-tool connects but never gets out of the "waiting for periodic update" state. With trace logging on I can see the clients do connect and send their initial commands, but then they get stuck waiting I think for management events that don't seem to arrive, although the periodic management log messages are there alright. Can someone try this out and confirm that I'm doing something monumentally stupid and it all really works just fine? On 02/04/2010 05:33 AM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: The latest release candidate for qpid (0.6rc5) has been out for a day or so and I've had no negative comments on it. In my opinion it is a small set of incremental improvements low risk on all the previous release candidates, and has reached the point where it's good enough for release. Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate (0.6rc5) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source bits as rc5 except changing the name. The subversion revision is: 905578 ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) The rules for a release vote are: ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) * Simple majority required. * No veto votes * At least 3 + votes. I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC votes. I also propose to run the vote until Tue 9 Feb 2010. At that point I will total the votes. Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find the votes. It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it. Thanks Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release
+1 I have installed the Java Broker, connected a client and sent some messages ok on Windows. (For 0.7 we should resolve the ssl paths in the config.xml file so that it starts ootb, but this isn't a blocker for 0.6 - merely a comment as I notice.) The license file etc look ok to me. Thanks & Regards, Marnie On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > The latest release candidate for qpid (0.6rc5) has been out for a day or > so and I've had no negative comments on it. > > In my opinion it is a small set of incremental improvements low risk on > all the previous release candidates, and has reached the point where > it's good enough for release. > > Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate > (0.6rc5) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source > bits as rc5 except changing the name. > > The subversion revision is: 905578 > ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) > > The rules for a release vote are: > ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) > > * Simple majority required. > * No veto votes > * At least 3 + votes. > > I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC > votes. > > I also propose to run the vote until Tue 9 Feb 2010. At that point I > will total the votes. > > Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find > the votes. > > It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you > should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd > suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > >
Vote for 0.6 Release
The latest release candidate for qpid (0.6rc5) has been out for a day or so and I've had no negative comments on it. In my opinion it is a small set of incremental improvements low risk on all the previous release candidates, and has reached the point where it's good enough for release. Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate (0.6rc5) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source bits as rc5 except changing the name. The subversion revision is: 905578 ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid ) The rules for a release vote are: ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) * Simple majority required. * No veto votes * At least 3 + votes. I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC votes. I also propose to run the vote until Tue 9 Feb 2010. At that point I will total the votes. Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find the votes. It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it. Thanks Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
You can get a Rat binary (2.2MB) at: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/rat/binaries/apache-rat-incubating-0.6-bin.tar.gz Don't believe you'll need it now but for reference, Maven binary (2.7MB) available at: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/maven/binaries/apache-maven-2.2.1-bin.tar.gz Robbie > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:astitc...@redhat.com] > Sent: 02 February 2010 17:29 > I've looked at rat and I'm put off to see that it needs maven to build > (huge download under Fedora) and as you say the documentaion seems to > be > pants. > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:00 +, Marnie McCormack wrote: > The docs are a bit ropey but I'm *fairly* sure it checks licenses. Anyone > confirm ? I've looked at rat and I'm put off to see that it needs maven to build (huge download under Fedora) and as you say the documentaion seems to be pants. If someone else would like to run rat against the 0.6rc5 packages I'd be very happy to let them. Andrew > > Marnie > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 16:22 +, Marnie McCormack wrote: > > > http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ > > > > Ah, thanks for that. Looks like it's in java though which might add some > > time to me getting it working. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > - > > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > > > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
The docs are a bit ropey but I'm *fairly* sure it checks licenses. Anyone confirm ? Marnie On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 16:22 +, Marnie McCormack wrote: > > http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ > > Ah, thanks for that. Looks like it's in java though which might add some > time to me getting it working. > > Andrew > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > >
RE: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
> Please apply QPID-2378 to the 0.6 branch to pick up the WCF client > specific release notes I'm sorry. I mean QPID-2313. Cliff -Original Message- From: Cliff Jansen (Interop Systems Inc) [mailto:v-clj...@microsoft.com] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 12:07 PM To: dev@qpid.apache.org; Andrew Stitcher Subject: RE: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query] Hi Andrew, My deepest apologies for missing the Licensing files outage. I have attached patches to QPID-2378 to fix this. > As I said several times before, I do not have enough time to go > through and do comprehensive release notes, as I've received exactly 3 > lines of release notes I've not done anything yet. Please apply QPID-2378 to the 0.6 branch to pick up the WCF client specific release notes which describe planned features, build instructions, transaction configuration settings, and known issues. Thanks. Cliff
RE: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
Hi Andrew, My deepest apologies for missing the Licensing files outage. I have attached patches to QPID-2378 to fix this. > As I said several times before, I do not have enough time to go > through and do comprehensive release notes, as I've received exactly 3 > lines of release notes I've not done anything yet. Please apply QPID-2378 to the 0.6 branch to pick up the WCF client specific release notes which describe planned features, build instructions, transaction configuration settings, and known issues. Thanks. Cliff
RE: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
> The WCF client zip doesn't contain any license info; I believe that is a > requirement for any release artefact. Thank-you for pointing out that serious oversight. I will submit a patch asap. Cliff -Original Message- From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 3:31 AM To: dev@qpid.apache.org Subject: Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query] On 01/28/2010 04:42 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > I put up an RC4 on Tuesday, I just forgot to tell anyone about it! > > As usual you'll find it at: > > http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc4 The release notes appear unchanged and still refer to M4. I won't myself block release for that, but if have checked in corrections - so that the information is at least not embarrassingly stale even if it is not very informative - if there is a desire to fix that. The WCF client zip doesn't contain any license info; I believe that is a requirement for any release artefact. On that topic are there any updates we need to make to any of the other licensing notices? I get cluster_test failures (on fedora 12) when running this: > 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% > ||||||||||| > Running 48 test cases... > *unknown location(0): fatal error in > "testReconnectSameSessionName": child was killed; pid: 31726; uid: 500; exit > value: 9 > ClusterFailover.cpp(61): last checkpoint > **2010-01-29 11:14:11 warning Connection closed > unknown location(0): fatal error in "testConnectionKnownHosts": child > was killed; pid: 32483; uid: 500; exit value: 9 > cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint > *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testUpdateConsumers": memory access > violation at address: 0x07d5ddbc: invalid permissions > cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint > * > *** 3 failures detected in test suite "Master Test Suite" > FAIL: run_cluster_test However the same errors appear for rc3 as well, so its not a regression since then. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
On 01/29/2010 03:51 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:31 +, Gordon Sim wrote: On 01/28/2010 04:42 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: I put up an RC4 on Tuesday, I just forgot to tell anyone about it! As usual you'll find it at: http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc4 The release notes appear unchanged and still refer to M4. I won't myself block release for that, but if have checked in corrections - so that the information is at least not embarrassingly stale even if it is not very informative - if there is a desire to fix that. As I said several times before, I do not have enough time to go through and do comprehensive release notes, as I've received exactly 3 lines of release notes I've not done anything yet. - they won't happen unless other people contribute. I can certainly remove erroneous references to M4 though. Understood and I'm not asking for any thing comprehensive. I have already checked in corrections to remove the M4 references. The WCF client zip doesn't contain any license info; I believe that is a requirement for any release artefact. On that topic are there any updates we need to make to any of the other licensing notices? I get cluster_test failures (on fedora 12) when running this: 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% ||||||||||| Running 48 test cases... *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testReconnectSameSessionName": child was killed; pid: 31726; uid: 500; exit value: 9 ClusterFailover.cpp(61): last checkpoint **2010-01-29 11:14:11 warning Connection closed unknown location(0): fatal error in "testConnectionKnownHosts": child was killed; pid: 32483; uid: 500; exit value: 9 cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testUpdateConsumers": memory access violation at address: 0x07d5ddbc: invalid permissions cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint * *** 3 failures detected in test suite "Master Test Suite" FAIL: run_cluster_test However the same errors appear for rc3 as well, so its not a regression since then. This is an issue I fixed on trunk last week - I don't think it was reported in Jira. Its actually a problem with the tests code rather than the code itself. Fixed in r903008 Great, we can ignore that then. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 16:22 +, Marnie McCormack wrote: > http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ Ah, thanks for that. Looks like it's in java though which might add some time to me getting it working. Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
The release notes should be generated out of JIRA for 0.6. items imho - certainly for the Java items. Highlights can of course be hand crafted if desired by anyone. Marnie On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:31 +, Gordon Sim wrote: > > On 01/28/2010 04:42 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > > I put up an RC4 on Tuesday, I just forgot to tell anyone about it! > > > > > > As usual you'll find it at: > > > > > > http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc4 > > > > The release notes appear unchanged and still refer to M4. I won't myself > > block release for that, but if have checked in corrections - so that the > > information is at least not embarrassingly stale even if it is not very > > informative - if there is a desire to fix that. > > As I said several times before, I do not have enough time to go through > and do comprehensive release notes, as I've received exactly 3 lines of > release notes I've not done anything yet. - they won't happen unless > other people contribute. I can certainly remove erroneous references to > M4 though. > > > > > The WCF client zip doesn't contain any license info; I believe that is a > > requirement for any release artefact. On that topic are there any > > updates we need to make to any of the other licensing notices? > > I get cluster_test failures (on fedora 12) when running this: > > > > > 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% > > > ||||||||||| > > > Running 48 test cases... > > > *unknown location(0): fatal error in > "testReconnectSameSessionName": child was killed; pid: 31726; uid: 500; exit > value: 9 > > > ClusterFailover.cpp(61): last checkpoint > > > **2010-01-29 11:14:11 warning Connection closed > > > unknown location(0): fatal error in "testConnectionKnownHosts": > child was killed; pid: 32483; uid: 500; exit value: 9 > > > cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint > > > *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testUpdateConsumers": memory > access violation at address: 0x07d5ddbc: invalid permissions > > > cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint > > > * > > > *** 3 failures detected in test suite "Master Test Suite" > > > FAIL: run_cluster_test > > > > However the same errors appear for rc3 as well, so its not a regression > > since then. > > This is an issue I fixed on trunk last week - I don't think it was > reported in Jira. Its actually a problem with the tests code rather than > the code itself. > > Fixed in r903008 > > Andrew > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > >
Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ Can a previous rel manager tell Andrew some more (I can't rem that far back as M1 !) - the website is rubbish. M On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:34 +, Marnie McCormack wrote: > > Andrew - did you run the rat tool on the rc ? > > What's that? > > A > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > >
Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:34 +, Marnie McCormack wrote: > Andrew - did you run the rat tool on the rc ? What's that? A - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:31 +, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 01/28/2010 04:42 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > I put up an RC4 on Tuesday, I just forgot to tell anyone about it! > > > > As usual you'll find it at: > > > > http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc4 > > The release notes appear unchanged and still refer to M4. I won't myself > block release for that, but if have checked in corrections - so that the > information is at least not embarrassingly stale even if it is not very > informative - if there is a desire to fix that. As I said several times before, I do not have enough time to go through and do comprehensive release notes, as I've received exactly 3 lines of release notes I've not done anything yet. - they won't happen unless other people contribute. I can certainly remove erroneous references to M4 though. > > The WCF client zip doesn't contain any license info; I believe that is a > requirement for any release artefact. On that topic are there any > updates we need to make to any of the other licensing notices? > I get cluster_test failures (on fedora 12) when running this: > > > 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% > > ||||||||||| > > Running 48 test cases... > > *unknown location(0): fatal error in > > "testReconnectSameSessionName": child was killed; pid: 31726; uid: 500; > > exit value: 9 > > ClusterFailover.cpp(61): last checkpoint > > **2010-01-29 11:14:11 warning Connection closed > > unknown location(0): fatal error in "testConnectionKnownHosts": > > child was killed; pid: 32483; uid: 500; exit value: 9 > > cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint > > *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testUpdateConsumers": memory access > > violation at address: 0x07d5ddbc: invalid permissions > > cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint > > * > > *** 3 failures detected in test suite "Master Test Suite" > > FAIL: run_cluster_test > > However the same errors appear for rc3 as well, so its not a regression > since then. This is an issue I fixed on trunk last week - I don't think it was reported in Jira. Its actually a problem with the tests code rather than the code itself. Fixed in r903008 Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
Andrew - did you run the rat tool on the rc ? Marnie On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 01/28/2010 04:42 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > >> I put up an RC4 on Tuesday, I just forgot to tell anyone about it! >> >> As usual you'll find it at: >> >> http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc4 >> > > The release notes appear unchanged and still refer to M4. I won't myself > block release for that, but if have checked in corrections - so that the > information is at least not embarrassingly stale even if it is not very > informative - if there is a desire to fix that. > > The WCF client zip doesn't contain any license info; I believe that is a > requirement for any release artefact. On that topic are there any updates we > need to make to any of the other licensing notices? > I get cluster_test failures (on fedora 12) when running this: > > 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% >> ||||||||||| >> Running 48 test cases... >> *unknown location(0): fatal error in >> "testReconnectSameSessionName": child was killed; pid: 31726; uid: 500; exit >> value: 9 >> ClusterFailover.cpp(61): last checkpoint >> **2010-01-29 11:14:11 warning Connection closed >> unknown location(0): fatal error in "testConnectionKnownHosts": >> child was killed; pid: 32483; uid: 500; exit value: 9 >> cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint >> *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testUpdateConsumers": memory access >> violation at address: 0x07d5ddbc: invalid permissions >> cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint >> * >> *** 3 failures detected in test suite "Master Test Suite" >> FAIL: run_cluster_test >> > > However the same errors appear for rc3 as well, so its not a regression > since then. > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > >
Re: 0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
On 01/28/2010 04:42 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: I put up an RC4 on Tuesday, I just forgot to tell anyone about it! As usual you'll find it at: http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc4 The release notes appear unchanged and still refer to M4. I won't myself block release for that, but if have checked in corrections - so that the information is at least not embarrassingly stale even if it is not very informative - if there is a desire to fix that. The WCF client zip doesn't contain any license info; I believe that is a requirement for any release artefact. On that topic are there any updates we need to make to any of the other licensing notices? I get cluster_test failures (on fedora 12) when running this: 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% ||||||||||| Running 48 test cases... *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testReconnectSameSessionName": child was killed; pid: 31726; uid: 500; exit value: 9 ClusterFailover.cpp(61): last checkpoint **2010-01-29 11:14:11 warning Connection closed unknown location(0): fatal error in "testConnectionKnownHosts": child was killed; pid: 32483; uid: 500; exit value: 9 cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint *unknown location(0): fatal error in "testUpdateConsumers": memory access violation at address: 0x07d5ddbc: invalid permissions cluster_test.cpp(537): last checkpoint * *** 3 failures detected in test suite "Master Test Suite" FAIL: run_cluster_test However the same errors appear for rc3 as well, so its not a regression since then. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
0.6RC4 available [Was: 0.6 Release - Query]
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 16:30 +, Marnie McCormack wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Just wondering if you have plans for a final (?) RC now that the blockers on > the 0.6. scope have been resolved/applied. Oops, I put up an RC4 on Tuesday, I just forgot to tell anyone about it! As usual you'll find it at: http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc4 I'd like to start the voting process right away, can someone point me to the rules? Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
0.6 Release - Query
Hi Andrew, Just wondering if you have plans for a final (?) RC now that the blockers on the 0.6. scope have been resolved/applied. Thanks & Regards, Marnie
0.6 release branch created; Trunk now open for development
I've upped the version of trunk qpid to 0.7 (in all the places I could find). So the trunk is now open for development. The Branch created to release 0.6 is called "0.6-release" it is based on svn revision 895736. Please don't check anything in there without checking it out with me first. At this point the only things that will be accepted for release are blocking bugs and release note documentation updates. However I want to vet all changes so attach a patch to jira and assign it to me. I consider a blocking bug to be one that is both a regression against 0.5 and impossible to work around, obviously this has fuzzy edges so I'm open to discussion on particular bugs. Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: 0.6 Release candidate now available
The C++ WCF client is also OK on 32 and 64 bit. -Original Message- From: Steve Huston [mailto:shus...@riverace.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:14 AM To: dev@qpid.apache.org Subject: RE: 0.6 Release candidate now available RC1 is ok on Windows, both 32 and 64 bit. I haven't looked at RC2; my understanding is that only cluster and java changed, yes? -Steve > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:astitc...@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 3:04 PM > To: dev@qpid.apache.org > Subject: 0.6 Release candidate now available > > > I've now uploaded the first release candidate for 0.6. > > You'll be able to find it at: > > http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc1 > > [when the automated sync process has finished] > > Due to lack of time on my part I have not done any test > building yet (except the java/dotnet builds that are part of > the prelease proces). So I'd very much like people to test > this on all platforms. > > As usual please raise any problems you find in the Jira system. > > If all is well, then the only changes that will have to be > made will be to update the release notes before final release. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Re: 0.6 Release candidate now available
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 12:13 -0500, Steve Huston wrote: >> RC1 is ok on Windows, both 32 and 64 bit. >> >> I haven't looked at RC2; my understanding is that only cluster and java >> changed, yes? > > Correct, so Windows should not have been affected. And the 0-10 .Net cilent. - Aidan -- Apache Qpid - AMQP, JMS, other messaging love http://qpid.apache.org "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: 0.6 Release candidate now available
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 12:13 -0500, Steve Huston wrote: > RC1 is ok on Windows, both 32 and 64 bit. > > I haven't looked at RC2; my understanding is that only cluster and java > changed, yes? Correct, so Windows should not have been affected. Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
RE: 0.6 Release candidate now available
RC1 is ok on Windows, both 32 and 64 bit. I haven't looked at RC2; my understanding is that only cluster and java changed, yes? -Steve > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:astitc...@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 3:04 PM > To: dev@qpid.apache.org > Subject: 0.6 Release candidate now available > > > I've now uploaded the first release candidate for 0.6. > > You'll be able to find it at: > > http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc1 > > [when the automated sync process has finished] > > Due to lack of time on my part I have not done any test > building yet (except the java/dotnet builds that are part of > the prelease proces). So I'd very much like people to test > this on all platforms. > > As usual please raise any problems you find in the Jira system. > > If all is well, then the only changes that will have to be > made will be to update the release notes before final release. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > > > - > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Call for 0.6 testing [Was Re: 0.6 Release candidate now available]
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 15:03 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > I've now uploaded the first release candidate for 0.6. > > You'll be able to find it at: > > http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc1 > > [when the automated sync process has finished] > > Due to lack of time on my part I have not done any test building yet > (except the java/dotnet builds that are part of the prelease proces). So > I'd very much like people to test this on all platforms. I have now built the cpp tree on: * Fedora 11/12 autotools/cmake * Debian Lenny autotools/cmake * Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.4 autotools all these builds pass "make check" with a small caveat to cmake test. However due to non installed qpid python they don't run an extensive suite of system tests. I'd appreciate everyone taking time to run at least some tests. Preferably on something I didn't test! Thanks Andrew - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
