Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Classic 5.18.6 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran through several tests * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console On Sun, Sep 29, 2

Re: Kerberos Usage Survey

Oops, obviously the wrong dev list, I sent a follow up to my other thread to the Accumulo users to hopefully prevent future reply alls. On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 12:50 PM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Apache Accumulo Users, > > The Accumulo PM

Kerberos Usage Survey

Hello Apache Accumulo Users, The Accumulo PMC would like to get some feedback on how widely used Kerberos[1] support currently is with existing users. Specifically we would like some feedback on the following questions: 1) Who is currently using Kerberos support with Apache Accumulo? 2) If you ar

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Classic 6.1.3 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran through several tests * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console On Tue, Aug 6, 20

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Classic 6.1.3 release

I won't have a chance to review the release until probably Tuesday but I wanted to comment on the BOM issue. I believe either the approach with ${project.version} or hard coding a version is fine (as long as you don't use a custom property as the release plugin won' work). I don't think we need to

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

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran through several tests * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console I did notice a te

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release

+1 (binding) * Built the tag from source and ran the fast tests * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source for license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Ran the broker from the binary and checked the web console On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.34.0 release

I would suggest using the git bisect command to try and find the commit that is causing the crash, if it is indeed a recent regression. On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 6:40 AM Havret wrote: > Hi Clebert, Justin, > > I've checked the previous version (2.33.0), as Justin suggested, and it's > working fine.

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

+1 (binding) On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 7:00 AM Praveen Kumar wrote: > +1 > > Get Outlook for iOS > > From: JD Liu > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 9:48:10 AM > To: dev@activemq.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Include unsubscribe me on all Acti

Re: [VOTE] Archive unused or out-of-date repos

+1 On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 2:38 PM Havret wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 8:15 PM Timothy Bish wrote: > > > On 4/23/24 13:57, Justin Bertram wrote: > > > Following up from the previous discussion thread on this subject, I'd > > like > > > to propose a vote for archiving the following re

Re: [DISCUSS] Delete unused or out-of-date repos

I don't think it's a good idea to delete anything unless it's just an empty repo so we can preserve the history. I think the standard practice is to instead ask infra to archive the repos and they become read only. We did that with Apollo: https://github.com/apache/activemq-apollo On Thu, Apr 1

Re: [PROPOSAL] Enable GH issues

thing we've really discussed > thoroughly. I mentioned it in my review only briefly as a "future > consideration." I don't think we've got consensus yet. > > > Justin > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:47 AM Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmai

Re: [PROPOSAL] Enable GH issues

Is there anything stopping us from enabling Github Discussions for now? It seems like we had consensus on that part. On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 2:15 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote: > Robbie/JB- > > Good calls outs, thanks! I did not mean to skew into contribution guide as > far as I did. I will take a pas

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

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran through several tests * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console * Verified new fix

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

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran through several tests * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console On Mon, Apr 8, 20

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from Jira to GitHub Issues

I am also on the Accumulo PMC and on that project we use Github issues and no longer use Jira. This switch was made before my time so I'm not sure of the reasoning. Personally, I don't really care too much either way as I've used both but I will just point out 2 things from my experience with it.

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

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran through several tests * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console On Tue, Apr 2, 20

Re: [ANNOUNCE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.33.0 Released

Was there a result email sent? I didn't see one, I just see the vote thread and then the announcement. On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 12:25 AM Justin Bertram wrote: > I'm pleased to announce the release of ActiveMQ Artemis 2.33.0. > > Downloads are now available at: > https://activemq.apache.org/compon

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.33.0

+1 (binding) * Built the tag from source and ran the fast tests * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source for license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Ran the broker from the binary and checked the web console On Thu, Mar 21, 2024

Re: Upgrading the Artemis Console

+1 for a separate repo It seems like the console would be a good candidate to separate out based on the points already made by others On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 9:10 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino < bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 separate repo > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 14:07, Clebert Suconic >

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.1.0 release (take #2)

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran through several tests * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console * Verified the act

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.1.0 release

We could just revert the change and do the release without it unless someone comes up with a way to fix it quickly. I don't know why anyone would actually have spaces in their path in a Unix environment anyways (obviously it's common in Windows but I've almost never seen it with linux) so it's not

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.1.0 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran through several tests * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console On Tue, Mar 5, 20

Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 6.0.x/6.1.x/... roadmap

Everything seems fine as a general guideline but I wouldn't guarantee "full compliance" on any specific 6.x release as it's just hard to say when it will happen. It's a goal that is being worked on each release and there's still a good amount of work to do so hopefully we get there but it's hard to

Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 6.0.x/6.1.x/... roadmap

I think for each 6.x branch we should just keep implementing more JMS 2 and Jakara messaging updates (6.1, 6.2, 6.3) etc and keep working towards being fully compatible. It would make sense to me to release 7.0 when everything is fully implemented for Jakarta messaging. I think improving configura

Re: [PROPOSAL] OpenWire exception handling mismatch between Javax and Jakarta APIs

erstand what they are getting into. > > Art > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 1:04 PM Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I talked with Tim and Matt offline and will go with that approach, I have > > PRs open. If needed we

Re: [PROPOSAL] OpenWire exception handling mismatch between Javax and Jakarta APIs

I talked with Tim and Matt offline and will go with that approach, I have PRs open. If needed we can backport to some older clients too. On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 9:38 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > As background, last week it was discovered (thanks Jus

[PROPOSAL] OpenWire exception handling mismatch between Javax and Jakarta APIs

As background, last week it was discovered (thanks Justin) that there was an oversight with the Exception handling over OpenWire with the upgrade to Jakarta apis in the 6.0.x broker. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-9418 The problem is that OpenWire has a response type to return an except

Re: [roadmap] ActiveMQ LTS

I think for a while we will need to support at least the latest 5.x and latest 6.x branches. There are going to be people that can't move to Jakarta for a while still. On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 4:10 PM Clebert Suconic wrote: > The term LTS implies support though. (Long Term *SUPPORT*). I would be

Re: [HEADS UP] 6.1.0 plans

tor away from gram/groovy/annogen as needed, > leverage text blocks where we can (license, headers, etc), and perhaps > something like JavaPoet for java class generation. > > Thoughts? > > -Matt Pavlovich > > > On Dec 5, 2023, at 6:44 AM, Christopher Shannon < >

Re: [HEADS UP] 6.1.0 plans

rt, I agree in full. Any of the > work that we can break up into minor or patch releases would be good from > the standpoint of getting some runtime of all the changes under our belt > before rolling out the major breaking change parts. > > > On Dec 4, 2023, at 6:57 AM, Christophe

Re: [HEADS UP] 6.1.0 plans

. > > So let’s use 6.x for incremental work and 7 when complete (without strong > commitment on date). > > Regards > JB > > Le lun. 4 déc. 2023 à 13:18, Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > I don't see how we can release s

Re: [HEADS UP] 6.1.0 plans

Speaking of protocol changes, if we do generate a new openwire version to add shared sub commands we have to actually fix the Openwire generator including the CVE issue. On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 7:18 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see how

Re: [HEADS UP] 6.1.0 plans

I don't see how we can release shared subscription support for 6.1.0 at this point. We haven't even come up with a plan of how we are going to implement it. There's multiple ways it could be done and probably requires protocol changes. We have to decide how much work is done by the broker and where

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.1 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran through several tests * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console On Thu, Nov 30, 2

Re: JMS 2 and JMS 3.1 status

I don't think it is very likely shared durable topics are going to be available in 6.1.0, unless we don't plan to release 6.1.0 for a long time. Shared subscriptions are going to be a decent amount of work to get correct as I don't think we should just hack the client to created a virtual topic as

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 release (take #2)

+1 (binding), LGTM * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran through several tests * Verified Openwire marshaller CVE fix is included and openwire test passes fix * V

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 release

Unfortunately I found a blocker so I have to -1 as this needs to be fixed first. See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-9388 and https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1117 On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 2:42 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi guys, > > After several weeks of work, I'm glad

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.16 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Verified fix was present in release * Ran broker from binary On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:02 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi all, > >

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.31.1 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console * Built from source and ran a few tests On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:3

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.7 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Verified fix was present in release On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:22 AM Jamie G. wrote: > +1 > > Cheers, > Jamie > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.6 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran some tests * Verified openwire test passes for marshaller fix * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exer

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.3 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran some tests * Verified openwire test passes for marshaller fix * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exer

Re: [PROPOSAL] Switch to GitHub issues/actions after ActiveMQ 6.0.0

I've thought about this some more and I think we should probably be consistent with all projects. Justin has made a good point about there being 21 projects/repos. I think the switch would be fine to GH issues, but if we did it I think we should be consistent and have all projects managed the same

Re: [PROPOSAL] Switch to GitHub issues/actions after ActiveMQ 6.0.0

+1, especially for Issue tracking. I've been using GitHub issue tracking instead of Jira on other projects I contribute to and the experience is much better with the integration between the Issues and PRs. On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 12:58 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Krzysztof > > The propos

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 6.0.0 revisited

t; Thanks ! > Regards > JB > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 12:43 PM Christopher Shannon > wrote: > > > > I am ok with whatever makes sense to distinguish the brokers. If people > are > > starting to use "classic" that is fine. As I previously said I don

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 6.0.0 revisited

gt; > > > > +1 to what Christopher said... I have rarely heard AMQ 5.x being > > > referred to as classic. Most of our users just say "ActiveMQ" or > > "Artemis". > > > > > > Same. I've never heard anyone co

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 6.0.0 revisited

023 at 10:25, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > > > >>>> Is it a good time to talk about ActiveMQ "Something" instead of > > > > >>>> "Classic" ? (I hate this "classic" naming (it sounds weird to

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 6.0.0 revisited

quot; ? (I hate this "classic" naming (it sounds weird to me) > and > > > >>>> most of people uses simply Artemis and ActiveMQ as name) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I proposed ActiveMQ Artemis and ActiveMQ Leto (Leto is the mother > of > &

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 6.0.0 revisited

ons. > > Big +1 > > regards, > > François > > On 11/09/2023 23:14, Christopher Shannon wrote: > > First, I realize that this thread is likely to cause a fight based on > past > > history and probably not go anywhere, but with the work being done > > with Jakarta

[DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 6.0.0 revisited

First, I realize that this thread is likely to cause a fight based on past history and probably not go anywhere, but with the work being done with Jakarta for AMQ 5.x I think it's time to at least bring up the ActiveMQ 6.0 discussion. With all the breaking changes currently targeted for version 5.

Re: [PROPOSAL] Change OSGi packaging for ActiveMQ 5.19.x

I don't really know too much about how the Osgi stuff works so I will defer to you and others who use it in terms of what is best so this sounds ok to me if it is needed. On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 8:08 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi all, > > As you know, ActiveMQ 5.19.x is in preparation with

Re: Heads up: ActiveMQ 5.x Jakarta broker PR in final review

PR this evening and get started on other tasks > ahead of release. > > Thanks, > Matt Pavlovich > > > On Aug 28, 2023, at 5:33 PM, Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm wrapping up my testing now, I've done

Re: Heads up: ActiveMQ 5.x Jakarta broker PR in final review

I'm wrapping up my testing now, I've done a lot of thorough testing with my own custom test suite and things are looking pretty good. Assuming all my tests look good I will approve the PR shortly and I figure we should give it a couple more days and just go ahead and merge the PR if there are no c

Re: Home for activemq-openwire

So maybe the activemq-openwire project should just be deprecated and go away since it is not used or maintained. It has been several years now but I'm pretty sure I just used the activemq-openwire-generator 5.x module (as Tim mentioned) to generate the latest v12 Openwire version that is in use to

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.2 release

The fixes (there's 2 commits) have been backported to the 5.17.x and 5.18.x branches so will be part of the next releases. On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 6:44 PM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > FYI for anyone reviewing the release, I noticed that t

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.2 release

FYI for anyone reviewing the release, I noticed that there is a test failure in JournalCorruptionEofIndexRecoveryTest but it's the test itself. There's already a fix in main here https://github.com/apache/activemq/commit/cfbea60d6d but the backport got missed. Since it's just the test that is brok

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.2 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source archive and ran several automated custom tests to verify things look good * Ran the broker from the binary archive and

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.5 release

+1 (binding) * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source archive * Ran the broker from the binary archive and exercised the web console On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 9:40 AM Jean-Ba

Re: Remove Jackson from ActiveMQ classic

and the wrapper can be modified to work in Java EE or Jakarta > EE > > > environments. > > > > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://javaee.github.io/javaee-spec/javadocs/javax/json/package-summary.html > &

Re: Remove Jackson from ActiveMQ classic

Yes, this keeps coming up and as JB said I don't see a problem with Jackson, it can be updated for CVEs and works very well and is quite feature rich in case we need it. If we are going to do any JSON serialization I don't want to re-invent the wheel and create our own serializer, so we should at

Re: [PROPOSAL] Jakarta approach for ActiveMQ 5.x broker

> releases > >> > >> A table of potential combinations: > >> > >> 5.18.x - Spring 5 + JDK 11 + javax (client and broker) > >> 5.18.x (-jakarta client) - Spring 5 + JDK 11 + jakarta (client-only) > >> 5.19.x - Spring 6 + JDK 17 + jaka

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.1 release

+1 (binding) I verified that the activemq-client-jakarta jart META-INF now looks the same as the activemq-client jar. Other things I checked: * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built f

Re: [PROPOSAL] Jakarta approach for ActiveMQ 5.x broker

ehaviours would remain the same, unlike with many 5.x bumps. Could > jump it to 5.30.x to separate and align with supporting Jakarta > Messaging 3 ;) > > On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 12:31, Christopher Shannon > wrote: > > > > So if 5.19.x just becomes Jakarta API (and not new m

Re: [PROPOSAL] Jakarta approach for ActiveMQ 5.x broker

ically my proposal in a previous email: I would not > use different artifacts, just change to the major version (5.19.x). If > people still want to use javax.jms, then he can use 5.18.x (that we > can "flag" as LTS). > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Apr 3, 20

Re: [PROPOSAL] Jakarta approach for ActiveMQ 5.x broker

in most (if not all) circumstances. It makes > >> sense to require them to change the GAV. > >> > >> In my opinion folks who just want to upgrade their existing (i.e. javax) > >> systems shouldn't have to change anything but the version number. > >>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Jakarta approach for ActiveMQ 5.x broker

nces. It makes > sense to require them to change the GAV. > > In my opinion folks who just want to upgrade their existing (i.e. javax) > systems shouldn't have to change anything but the version number. > > > Justin > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 6:20 AM Christopher Shan

Re: [PROPOSAL] Jakarta approach for ActiveMQ 5.x broker

op’ the javax modules and not have to cause users to change > anything else back to have clean GAV coordinates. > > Thanks, > Matt Pavlovich > > > On Mar 30, 2023, at 3:49 PM, Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks Mat

Re: [PROPOSAL] Jakarta approach for ActiveMQ 5.x broker

Thanks Matt for bringing this up. We definitely need to figure out a path forward as there is a lot of confusion about this still and users are getting bit by it when trying to upgrade to Spring 6 and Spring boot 3. Ultimately I think we will need to support both javax and jakarta for quite a whil

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.0 release

Also for anyone who is looking at the release and is testing and isn't aware on the state of the JMS 2.0 client and the new Jakarta client...It's not complete and there is some info here: https://activemq.apache.org/jms2 Currently the clients only support some of the new API methods so far so not

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.0 release

+1 (binding) Overall things look pretty good to me. * Validated signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source archive and ran several automated custom tests to verify things look good * Ran

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.4 release

+1 (binding) * Verified signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source headers using 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Started up a broker from the binary and verified it came up ok * Built from source and ran some tests to make sure everything looked good On We

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.6 release

+1 (binding) * Verified signatures and checksums * Checked source headers using 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and verified build worked * Started a broker from the tar file and verified everything started up ok I think we can fix the copyright date for future releases, I don't think

Re: [DISCUSS] discontinue PDF, EPUB, & MOBI docs for Artemis

This seems like a question much better suited for the user mailing list to see if any users actually use those formats. On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 12:26 PM Clebert Suconic wrote: > I wonder if anyone ever uses them? > > We used to make them because it was cool to do it years ago... now it > feels li

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.28.0

+1, looks good to me On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 4:07 PM Gary Tully wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 15:19, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > > > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.28.0 release. > > > > I would like to highlight the following changes in this release: > > > > - Pag

Re: Starting ActiveMQ 5.18.x preparation/update

ect, better to > postpone to 5.19.x. > 3. I'm doing a full pass on the tests, also reevaluating the profiles. > I will share some details. > > I will update Jira with the releases plan. > > Thanks, > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 12:40 PM Christopher

Re: Starting ActiveMQ 5.18.x preparation/update

JB, I was writing up a response when I saw Robbies and I have the same questions. What is your plan for handling the Jakarta namespace? Are you just using Maven to generate another module that's a copy of activemq-client? Also, you said Spring 6 is not very difficult and could be in 5.18.x but d

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.3

+1 * Verified signatures and checksums * Verified license and notice files in archives * Checked source headers using 'mvn apache-rat:check' * Built from source and ran some tests to make sure everything looked good and verified advisory bug fixes look good On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 4:10 PM Timothy

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.27.0

+1 (binding) On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:52 AM Havret wrote: > +1 (binding) > > I've run the tests against ArtemisNetClient[1] 2.10.1. It's all green. > > To make the testing easier, I've created a docker image[2] with the release > candidate binaries. Feel free to use it to run your tests. > > C

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.26.0 release

+1 -Ran through a full build and the tests -Verified signatures and checksms -Verified source license headers with 'mvn apache-rat:check' On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 6:10 PM Timothy Bish wrote: > On 9/21/22 16:23, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.26.0

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis

hough. We can > break the API but compatibility with older clients has always been > respected. > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:54 AM Christopher Shannon > wrote: > > > > If you are going to move to version 3.0 it would be a nice time to look > at > > thin

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing Rest from ActiveMQ Artemis

If you are going to move to version 3.0 it would be a nice time to look at things to fix that are breaking changes like the spec violations I pointed out in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1262 . The issue has been around for at least 5 years when I opened the Jira. I didn't see a goo

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.2 release

We still need another binding vote if anyone has a chance to take a look, thanks. On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 2:40 AM fpapon wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks to all the team for the great work on ActiveMQ! > > regards, > > François > > On 26/08/2022 07:10, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi, > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.2 release

le to do a full build w/ JDK 17(minus unit > tests) once this was resolved. > >> > >> I have a PR running unit tests to clear this up, and will add a JDK 17 > rule to the JenkinsFile as a follow-up. > >> > >> ref: https://github.com/apache/act

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.2 release

+0, I'm ok releasing but it would be nice to fix since it's a regression. The most important thing to me is it runs on JDK 17 because the download page advertises as Java 11+ which as a user I'd assume is for runtime. If I recall we added JDK 11 build support officially in 5.17.x and not JDK 17. B

Re: [PROPOSAL] Completely remove Camel reference in the ActiveMQ broker

a bit late to respond but this seems fine to me, +1 On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 12:54 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi, > > We have a consensus. So I will process creating a Jira and preparing a PR. > > Thanks all for your feedback. > > Regards > JB > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 9:01 AM Jean-Baptiste

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.24.0

looks good to me, thanks On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 12:17 PM Clebert Suconic wrote: > @Chris Nice Catch! > > > i updated it there... let me know what you think of the update. > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 11:37 AM Christopher Shannon > wrote: > > > > Clebert, >

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.24.0

done or necessary. On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:28 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:01 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino < > bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 binding >> >> *

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.24.0

+1 (binding) On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:01 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino < bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 binding > > * Checked parent version in pom.xml files using `grep -LPrz --include > pom.xml "(.|\n)*2.24.0<\/version>(.|\n)*<\/parent>" ./` > * Ran binary broker instance on Fedora 36 usin

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis 2.23.1

+1, I built form source and ran through several tests and it looks good to me On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 11:49 AM Timothy Bish wrote: > On 6/14/22 16:58, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.23.1 release > > > > This is a small release following up where

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.23.0

+1 On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 1:43 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 9:05 PM Clebert Suconic > wrote: > > > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.23.0 release. > > > > As part of this release I would like to highlight the addi

Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ

Justin, Looks like you sent your response right when I sent mine where I mentioned I was leaning towards having different terms between brokers. You more accurately described the situation than I did. It's not so much a difference between 5.x and Artemis but two different scenarios of runtime vs

Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ

I'd be ok with Active/Standby specifically for 5.x, but not sure if it works for Artemis or not without thinking about it more so I'd want to hear from people with more Artemis experience. I am starting to think more and more that to be the most accurate we may need different terms for each broker

Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ

+1 for Primary/Backup with my reasoning below. First, it's pretty clear like "leader/follower" is a no go based on the feedback so far so we can throw that out. For HA, there are slightly different use cases here depending on the broker and mode chosen with how HA works which is probably why ther

Re: [DISCUSS] Use a generic logger in ActiveMQ Artemis

Using SL4J makes sense to me as that is what almost everyone else uses so it's pretty standard and easy to swap implementations On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 1:26 PM Justin Bertram wrote: > I think this looks great, Clebert. The code is straightforward, and I like > the idea of reducing our dependencie

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.5 release

+1, built and ran from source along with some tests On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:57 AM Timothy Bish wrote: > On 4/29/22 05:01, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > I submit the ActiveMQ 5.16.5 release to your vote. > > > > This release is a maintenance release on the 5.16.x series incl

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2.22.0

+1 built from source and ran through the test suite On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:14 AM Francesco Nigro wrote: > +1 binding > Very happy re the change on the cluster connection!!! > > Il gio 28 apr 2022, 18:25 Clebert Suconic ha > scritto: > > > I would like to propose an Apache ActiveMQ Artemis 2

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.1 release

+1 I built from source and ran through a bunch of tests and everything looks good to me. On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 9:01 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 15:21, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > I submit the ActiveMQ 5.17.1 release to your vote. > > > > This

Re: Making APLO Jira Project read only

Both projects have been marked as retired: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23108 On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:10 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alright, I'll go ahead and put in a ticket with Infra and let > everyone know when it'

Re: Making APLO Jira Project read only

Alright, I'll go ahead and put in a ticket with Infra and let everyone know when it's finished. On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:16 PM Timothy Bish wrote: > +1 from me > > On 4/6/22 16:12, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > Sounds good to me. > > > > On Wed,

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >