+1
Jeff
> On May 7, 2023, at 2:09 AM, Havret wrote:
>
> FYI
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>
> Date: Sun, May 7, 2023 at 7:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release activemq-nms-amqp 2.2.0-rc1
> To: mailto:dev@activemq.apache.org>>
+1
Jeff
> On Mar 15, 2023, at 7:42 AM, Michael André Pearce
> wrote:
>
> +1 (Binding)
>
> Mike
>
> On 2023/03/12 10:27:34 Havret wrote:
>> FYI
>>
>> -- Forwarded message -
>> From: Havret
>> Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 11:27 AM
>> Subject: [VOTE] Release activemq-nms-amqp
Yeah it actually should be on both. private@ is where the vote actually
counts. dev@ is for keeping it public.
Jeff
> On Feb 27, 2023, at 8:10 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> Whoops, now I see it's on both. My mistake.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 8:09 AM Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
>>
+1
Jeff
> On Feb 4, 2023, at 10:54 AM, Havret wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have put together a release of activemq-nms-openwire, please check it
> and vote accordingly. Huge thanks to Łukasz Cygan for his help in resolving
> the issue identified in version 2.0.0.
>
> This release contains the
+1
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
+1
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
+1
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
jgenender wrote
> Robbie Gemmell wrote
>>> If you are adamant about a website, then pick up a shovel and
>>> step up to do it. Thats an easy way to get commit.
>>
>> I've had commit rights for some years now, but thanks for the tip.
>
> Interestingly eno
Robbie Gemmell wrote
> After it sat going stale and unmaintained for years. It also took an
> age to follow through on the vote to mark it deprecated.
>
> A clear discussion like this around Apollo would have been great far
> sooner in my view.
It was discussed. IIRC, there was a good
Michael André Pearce wrote
> Be good if those PRs for CMS could reopen. It be great to have cms back on
> track and an updated release. IMO
+1
I think it would be great... there are some nice patches in there. We
really need to reopen that discussion for cleaning up the repo and move it
alan protasio wrote
> I'm also happy to contribute with those projects where I can.
>
> I was trying to port the NMS to .net core some time ago and I'm happy to
> go
> forward with it.
Thats awesome Alan. Your patches so far have been pretty fantastic. Seeing
you jump into the NMS code would
Robbie Gemmell wrote
> Saying you see value in something is not someone saying they will help
> maintain it. There being users is not someone saying they will help
> maintain it. I see one person who might have said they intend to help
> maintain things on the CPP side. Some other people have
Well keeping you honest, you did start this thread and stated:
jbertram wrote
> Does it make sense anymore to maintain our own stable of
> interfaces & clients? Should we mark these as retried or deprecated?
That kinda implies removing them... just sayin'...
Jeff
--
Sent from:
Justin, what seems to be the problem? Not everyone follows every thread, so
they don't always speak up. They don't have to. The JIRA and comments in
past threads speak for themselves. I am simply pointing that out.
It seems like you are trying to kill this. You have had a couple of people
+1
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
+1
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
+1 to github notifications on another list. It does indeed drown out the
communication here and not everyone can use a filter. I use Nabble, so its
not as easy.
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Awesome... thanks for doing this!
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Thanks for the explanation.
I think I mentioned Jamie Goodyear had showed interest to help with JIRAs
and know there are others who will help when important JIRAs pop up. I
think those APIs are simple clients that probably don’t require a lot of
loving care and are relatively stable. I don’t
I’m interested where this is coming from. There was a fairly big thread
recently with regard to CPP and patching of which Jamie Goodyear attempted
to put in some patches and was subsequently slapped by Tim Bish. In
addition it appeared that Tim Bish recently released a CPP with a change.
It
Hey Clebert,
This is really cool stuff. But I don't like it being called ActiveMQ-native
because it will confuse people with ActiveMQ classic (which really is
ActiveMQ for now) or that it would even work with ActiveMQ 5.x. I would
recommend retaining the Artemis in the name, or
gtully wrote
> Jamie,
> you are missing my point. it is a tradeoff plain and simple. easier to
> maintain for who? It has been carefully maintained for more than 7
> years.
I am a bit confused and surprised. Its been maintained for 7 years by a
small select few of what has become stovepipe app
+1
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Yeah, that 7082/93 fixes a nasty one and probably should get that out fairly
soon.
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
+1
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Yep... AMQ-7082 certainly should be in 5.15.7, so I merged it. This closes
the loop on the delays on shutdown. Hopefully all were cool with me cherry
picking it in.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
+1
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
+1
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
+1
Thanks for doing the release, Chrsitopher.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Hi Johan,
That was exactly what that attribute was added for. I had a discussion with
Gary this morning (Gary please correct me if I am wrong on any points) was
that he felt that having an MBean that can do a full sweep instead of a
parameter would be better. Unfortunately for some, an MBean
Hi Christopher,
AMQ-7015 has been updated with Gary's suggestion and is robust now. It
should be fine for 5.15.X now.
Thanks!
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Hey Jamie, since it s a potential CVE, I think its fine to go into 5.15.x.
In fact I jumped the gun and committed it there and 5.16. If the other
folks think that's not a good idea to be in 5.15.x, we can back that out.
Thanks for jumping on those. Those are critical.
--
Sent from:
clebertsuconic wrote
> I did not mean to be harsh.. I just tried to make a straight point.
> either fix it or deprecate it.. discussions won't solve it!
It will solve it... because people will step up, or they won't, which means,
yes, the discussions will ultimately find a path to resolution.
clebertsuconic wrote
> This is not about opinions.. it's a fact.. people either fix it.. .or
> deprecate it! Simple!
Clebert, harshness on these lists needs to be tempered. No need for a bike
shed here.
clebertsuconic wrote
> If no one is fixing it.. it will be deprecated.. I don't think this
+1 Bruce... thank you.
I wish we could lock threads... like in forums...
Lets puhlease puhlease move on... this is just getting tiring. The personal
attacks have to stop.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
>> "When it's ready, Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6"
>>
>> I think there is consensus forming around that.
> Agree. For those voting -1 on the "when its ready.." let's be
> constructive. Provide path forward.
We did. Read the thread.
--
Sent from:
I'm 0 on this. Hadrian makes a very valid point and it opens up some
interesting thoughts.
I'm +1 for Artemis becoming a top level project because yes, based on the
infighting, etc, it may be best that it forms its own living/breathing
community. I am personally exhausted from the fighting. If
Hadrian, +1, and very well said. I had a response ready to go, but you
summed up the most parts. I will fill in a few holes...
Martyn (and Chris I guess) I am asking that you please put down your
pitchforks. The history of the players, not the employer per se, but the
small subset has caused
Oh let’s not go there Chris :-). You won’t like the answers.
Who are you affiliated with, Chris?
christopher.l.shannon wrote
> As someone who has no affiliation with Red Hat (I don't work for them and
> I
> am not a customer) I do get pretty tired of all the accusations as well
> and
> getting
I'm sorry... just when we move forward, we take 2 steps back.
Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
> I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ
> work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the
> future and working to align the community to that end is a good
Daniel Kulp wrote
> I’m -0.5 on moving them. PR’s (and the conversations in them) are part of
> the development process and should be on the dev list.
But the deluge often loses the discussion which is why some projects have
commit lists. This is the difference between projects that work off
artnaseef wrote
> Please don't get too discouraged. My vote personally was a request to
> slow
> down and discuss. I'm just not at a point where I'm ready for "ActiveMQ
> Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6".
>
> We have this cycle of communication in which a vote goes out and generates
> a
> ton of
Daniel Kulp wrote
> I personally think the “adoption argument” is bull shit. That’s like
> saying the Tomcat community cannot release Tomcat 9 until the adoption of
> "Tomcat 9 (beta)” becomes significant. That’s just dumb. So it really
> comes down to features and documentation/migration.
clebertsuconic wrote
>> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work
>> towards
>> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.
>
> Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity.
Thats a pretty sad view. Nobody said unanimous. Harmony is certainly not
that
Consensus as I understand it the way it used here at Apache is the way its
defined partially in the dictionary:
"general agreement or concord; harmony."
We don't have that here. Its pretty far from harmony.
At this stage its somewhat moot and continuing down the path we are going in
this
BRUCE!!! o/ Good to see you!
Bruce Snyder wrote
> I disagree with discussing or even considering anything the vendors want
> to
> do. Even when I worked for LogicBlaze and then IONA, I disagreed with
> trying to drive our company agenda via the Apache ActiveMQ project. But
> given that
+1 to Clebert. PR messages are like commit messages and they convolute
important topics.
Jeff
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda as
you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies. Sorry,
just calling a spade a spade. Its definitely bringing back the
knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago. That's a shame and
I
christopher.l.shannon wrote
> Hadrian,
>
> In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever
> that we need to clarify the status of the project.
>
> Amazon didn't consult anyone form this community as far as I am aware.
> They probably chose to use 5.x precisely because
-1 to making Artemis ActiveMQ 6 now.
Art was pretty much dead on and I fully agree with Hadrian.
Hadrian said it so I won't get into that level of detail, but until we see
Artemis truly as a successor both due to adoption and workability with AMQ
5, I am not ready to see it change.
I do want to
+1
Jeff
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-ActiveMQ-5-13-5-tp4720539p4720584.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
clebertsuconic wrote
> I don't want to read that discussion again.. but from what I remember
> of what I once read, and after I talked to some guys in person, the
> issue was where the component would live.. like the plugin being
> outside of AMQ5 code.
>
> I believe that if we consumed hawt-io
John D. Ament-2 wrote
> Just wondering - considering where a number of committers work. Why not
> leverage hawt.io as a new console?
Oh boy... that was likely not the right thing to say... ;-) I see Pandora's
box about to open up... and surprisingly, John, your answer concerns me as
you are
I'll be there...dunno if I can make it to a hackathon, but beers for sure.
;-)
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Anyone-going-to-JavaOne-Proposed-Hackathon-tp4716528p4716529.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
+1
Jeff
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-13-3-tp4711217p4711219.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Christopher, you are a scholar and a gentleman. Thanks ;-)
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5-13-3-and-5-14-0-release-schedule-tp4710502p4710538.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi Christopher, thanks for the response. 5.14.0 actually looks like it has
AMQ-6203 that would appear to impact 5.11.x, 5.12.x, and 5.13.x. See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5695 for details. That one would
be really nice to have in 5.13.3.
--
View this message in context:
Awesome ideas! Keep em coming!
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-encourage-more-diversity-on-ActiveMQ-tp4695196p4695205.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Yeah... I wouldn't open that can of worms... ;-)
That said, perhaps at some point in the future hawt.io could be a donation
to Apache that would likely garner A LOT of support and community
involvement. Imagine the possibilities if that happened! ;-) /me ducks
--
View this message in context:
GitHub user jgenender opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/205
ACTIVEMQ6-97 - Change HQ to AMQ for properties/headers/doc. Remove as mu...
...ch HQ as possible and change to AMQ to make this close to the ActiveMQ
project.
You can merge this pull request
Github user jgenender commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-6/pull/205#issuecomment-92984868
Absolutely.
Thanks,
Jeff
On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:11 AM, clebertsuconic notificati...@github.com
wrote:
We will need to fix
+1 [a] ActiveMQ Artemis
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Pick-a-code-name-for-the-HornetQ-code-donation-tp4694889p4694914.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Works for me. Just forwarding it along as it seems a lot of folks adopted
the apache-* irc naming conventions. Looks like the original email didn't
make it to the dev list.
--
View this message in context:
GitHub user jgenender opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/87
AMQ-5721 - Update ActiveMQ to use commons-pool2 instead of commons-pool
...AMQ-5636 will need it. The JMS pool and other components should use it
as well.
You can merge this pull request
rajdavies wrote
No idea about users or install base of either ActiveMQ or HornetQ - I
meant developers - that's really what Apache means by community isn't
it?
No... the developers don't make up the community. Its made of users,
developers, and contributors on many levels, etc. Its not the
rajdavies wrote
This incubator line is a red herring. HornetQ wanted to consolidate
communities together - they didn't need more committers - their community
( in the Apache sense of the word) was already bigger than ActiveMQ.
I'm going to call shenanigans on this ;-) You have info/data on
Dain! Good to see you! Long time no see ;-)
Dain is spot on. I'm also an old Geronimo hound. The more people coding
helps create heterogeneity. I'm not against HornetQ being AMQ6... in fact I
believe I supported it.
The problem here is exactly what Dain pointed out. More people coding.
GitHub user jgenender opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/66
AMQ-5636 - Update DBCP to a much more recent version
AMQ-5636 - Update DBCP to a much more recent version
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https
I have to agree on this. Cutting a release with broken tests is a slippery
slope. This needs to build out-of-the-box so folks can build this
themselves. This is the expectation and its what lets people fix heir own
issues. Once we start ignoring a few tests, we start ignoring a lot of
tests.
+1 (Non-binding)
Jeff
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Apache-NMS-API-1-7-0-tp4689440p4689612.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Awesome! This could really change the landscape for MQs in opensource.
Getting the best of all of these makes one powerful product. I really look
forward to this!
Big +1 from me!
Jeff
--
View this message in context:
GitHub user jgenender opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/31
AMQ-5265 - fix race condition for task
AMQ-5265 - fix race condition for task in MBeanBridgeDestination for
running the purgeInactiveDestinationViewTask and the execution of
onOutboundMessage
GitHub user jgenender opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/18
Fix for AMQ-5116. Deprecated batchStatment and added batchStatement.
Added deprecation warnings in the log for those using the misspelled
version. Both versions will set batchStatement
James Strachan-2 wrote
I'm suggesting that at github, its pretty hard to run a smear campaign
like
certain folks from Savoir Talend have been doing against Fuse/Red Hat
folks here at Apache for some time. On github I've yet to see any personal
attacks, FUD, slander, conspiracy theories or
2014 23:42, jgenender lt;
jgenender@
gt; wrote:
rajdavies wrote
Apache isn't exactly the best place for innovation. Just look at this
whole thread, imagine trying to create a UI based around consensus - it
wouldn't happen - so it doesn't seem odd to me that the ASF wouldn't
+1 on all counts to Chris' comments... and a -1 to moving the console
(non-binding).
I guess I just don't get why hawt.io cannot be skinned and have it become a
part of the project. It seems to me that allowing it to be skinned allows
it to not only give it the AMQ look and feel... but allows
I am also interested in why not at Apache. Looking at the contributors list:
https://github.com/hawtio/hawtio/graphs/contributors
A lot of those names seem to jump out as being AMQ committers. I assume you
would know, or perhaps one of the other hawt.io contributors would like to
chime in?
rajdavies wrote
Apache isn’t exactly the best place for innovation. Just look at this
whole thread, imagine trying to create a UI based around consensus - it
wouldn’t happen - so it doesn’t seem odd to me that the ASF wouldn't be
there first choice.
Can you please expound on why Apache is not
Hi Rob,
I think pulling the web console is playing the nuclear option. The
webconsole is used all over the place. It makes AMQ more approachable for
beginners. It would be a big detriment to remove it.
That said, hawt.io is a nice technology. But regarding the other thread, I
have to agree
Hi guys...
I contributed a patch and was subsequently committed (Thanks Dejan!) for
AMQ-2697 as an enhancement. I would like to update the doc on
http://activemq.apache.org/advisory-message.html to show that enhancement
for 5.4+. I tried to get into it, but I'm getting this report:
Database
80 matches
Mail list logo
