Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Re-reading the entire thread, it appears there is an mbean leak. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691397.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

A leak is a major concern. With that said, I have questions. First, I thought the creation of addition mbeans was failing, is that not right? If so, then what is actually leaking? Are the mbeans being created but not removed? Also, can you clarify under what conditions this occurs? For exam

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:00 AM, artnaseef wrote: > Hey Claus - we can work on a 5.10.2; this bug exists in 5.10.1? > Yes 5.10.1 and 5.11.0 are affected. > Before starting down that route, though, is it possible to clarify the > impact of this bug? It sounds like a nuisance from what I read -

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Hey Claus - we can work on a 5.10.2; this bug exists in 5.10.1? Before starting down that route, though, is it possible to clarify the impact of this bug? It sounds like a nuisance from what I read - and could hurt performance in some use-cases. Is that fair? -- View this message in context:

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Paul Gale wrote: > Given Claus' discovery does the severity of the issue warrant an immediate > dot release 5.11.1? > Its fixed now on master and 2.11 branch. And IMHO should be backported to 5.10.x branch as well. Patch releases would be a good idea, starting wit

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Actually if you're working with a forked repo (as I am) the command will be: git fetch --tags upstream Just an FYI Thanks, Paul On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, artnaseef wrote: > Yup: > > git tag -v activemq-5.11.0 > > > git fetch --tags > > get tag -v actrivemq-5.11.0 > > > > > -- > View th

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Yup: git tag -v activemq-5.11.0 git fetch --tags get tag -v actrivemq-5.11.0 -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691128.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Ahh, good catch dkulp. Perhaps Paul needs to update his repo? I think I need to do that too. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691127.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

> On Feb 5, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Paul Gale wrote: > > I am trying to build 5.11.0 based on the Git tag "activemq-5.11.0". > However, this tag points to commit 48b0cf3 dating from 2014-12-29. > > Shouldn't this tag point to commit 4ba1a16 dated 2015-01-30? If so, can one > of the committers please

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Cool - thanks Tim. Let me know if I can help. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691124.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

The tag should be moved to the actual release. I don't want to touch that myself though as I do not know how to be sure which commit is truly the correct one. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691123.html Sent from

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

I am trying to build 5.11.0 based on the Git tag "activemq-5.11.0". However, this tag points to commit 48b0cf3 dating from 2014-12-29. Shouldn't this tag point to commit 4ba1a16 dated 2015-01-30? If so, can one of the committers please move said tag? Thanks, Paul On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:39 PM,

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

On 02/05/2015 02:37 PM, artnaseef wrote: Good find Claus. I'll try to find time tonight to look at that one as it's an area I've been in before. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691117.html Sent from the ActiveM

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Good question - do we know the exact conditions required to cause the problem? And all of the impacts when the problem occurs? -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691118.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Good find Claus. I'll try to find time tonight to look at that one as it's an area I've been in before. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691117.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Given Claus' discovery does the severity of the issue warrant an immediate dot release 5.11.1? Thanks, Paul On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote: > Hi > > Okay I have narrowed it down to the git commit that caused this issue. > I posted that in the ticket. > > It its due this ticke

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Hi Okay I have narrowed it down to the git commit that caused this issue. I posted that in the ticket. It its due this ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5015 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote: > Hi > > I logged a ticket about this. Not sure what the title it, b

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 (non binding) Regards JB On 01/30/2015 03:00 PM, Gary Tully wrote: Hi folks, I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. -note- this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken test case fr

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Hi I logged a ticket about this. Not sure what the title it, but I suspect its related to the activemq-pool. I found an easier way of reproducing it using the camel-example-management. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5564 Just change the AMQ version in its pom.xml org.ap

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Hi Just upgraded Camel master branch to 5.11.0 and you can reproduce the issue there also cd examples/camel-example-management mvn clean install camel:run Connect to the JVM using jconsole. Notice the AcitveMQ tree under dynamic producers keeps adding new mbeans, until your JVM runs out of memo

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Hi I have done as Arthur suggested to dump the stacktrace, and also with Gary's turn on|off the anonoymous producers. I posted output from console as 2 gists https://gist.github.com/davsclaus/b5fbb1287d383107e599 https://gist.github.com/davsclaus/0472ed0ab85ec5af9e79 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

claus, that looks like producers are not being cached - I thought the culprit may be https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4968 but that would have made 5.10. In any event, can you set useAnonymousProducers=false on your activemq pooled connection factory. On 3 February 2015 at 16:55, Claus Ib

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Hey Claus - can you try dumping the stack trace when the MBeans are created and removed to see the internal cause? I'm thinking along the following lines: LOG.warn(..., new Exception()) -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Hi Just wanted to say I have stumbled on a weird issue with the 5.11.0 release which I had trouble reproducing consistently. The issue is subtle causing AMQ to continuously re-create dynamic producer mbeans in the JMX tree. This is using a Camel spring app with the AMQ connection pool. Though ju

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 Looks good. Dan > On Jan 30, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Gary Tully wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. > This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. > > -note- > this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' br

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 Gary Tully 30 January 2015 14:00 Hi folks, I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. -note- this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken test case from

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 On Mon, Feb 2, 2015, 8:11 AM Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > +1 (binding) > > * Sigs ok > * Legal ok (almost) >- a bunch of Copyright notices pointing to 2014 or 2013 (need to > cleanup) > * Builds from source ok (almost) > > There is one consistent failure in activemq-karaf-itest, however test

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 (binding) * Sigs ok * Legal ok (almost) - a bunch of Copyright notices pointing to 2014 or 2013 (need to cleanup) * Builds from source ok (almost) There is one consistent failure in activemq-karaf-itest, however test does pass when ran individually. No product defect, but should be address

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Gary Tully wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. > This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. > > -note- > this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken test case from rc2

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 (non-binding) I gave a kick of the tyres to the broker binaries on linux, verified the checksums+sigs, built the source release skipping the tests, did a 'quick' subset of the tests (Client, Broker, Stomp, MQTT, JDBC, LevelDB, AMQP), and verified a dependent project using the build output. Rob

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 Regards -- Dejan Bosanac -- Red Hat, Inc. dbosa...@redhat.com Twitter: @dejanb Blog: http://sensatic.net ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Timothy Bish wrote: > +1 > > > On 01/30/2015 09:00 AM, Gary Tully wrote: > >> Hi fo

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 On 01/30/2015 09:00 AM, Gary Tully wrote: Hi folks, I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. -note- this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken test case from rc2 however there can b

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 (non-binding) Regards Krzysztof On 30.01.2015 15:00, Gary Tully wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. > This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. > > -note- > this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' brok

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

+1 On Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 10:34 PM Claus Ibsen wrote: > Hi > > +1 > > Tested against Camel in Action source code also. > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Gary Tully wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 > release. > > This release has

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Hi +1 Tested against Camel in Action source code also. On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Gary Tully wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. > This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. > > -note- > this candidate include

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0 (rc3)

Hi folks, I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. -note- this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken test case from rc2 however there can be no expectation of a 'reliable' full test run f

[CANCEL] [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

new rc with the reliable unit test failure resolved, on the way. On 29 January 2015 at 17:56, Gary Tully wrote: > the pmc has decided, but the non binding -1 are accumulating. I will try > again. > > someone hit it on the head with "appropriate set of tests" to verify > the distro. That does not

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

the pmc has decided, but the non binding -1 are accumulating. I will try again. someone hit it on the head with "appropriate set of tests" to verify the distro. That does not exist today in the project. It is all or nothing. I can't see anyone taking our source and waiting hours for the tests to c

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Right, but in the interest of speed the tests are skipped. Other than that, well, you're perfectly correct. Hadrian On 01/29/2015 10:22 AM, jgoodyear wrote: -1 (non-binding) If users can't build the source as provided than it should not go out the door. At Apache Karaf we're held up R

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

-1 (non-binding) If users can't build the source as provided than it should not go out the door. At Apache Karaf we're held up RC processes many times due to test cases, in fact the project can't go through the release:perform without the test cases having run cleanly - the RC will fail out.

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Gary, The ASF has clear, documented guidelines of what constitutes a release and what a release tester is supposed to do. I follow those guidelines. You say you have better ones that take precedence. Uhm, ok. In general I think I am quite a flexible person. A decent argument can easily sway m

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

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. T

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

You're splitting hairs here. Our users expect to be able to download the source distribution and use THE BUILD to generate the resulting software. Part of the build is running the appropriate tests to assure it is working properly. How many maven tutorials do you see that say "run mvn clean inst

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hadrian, the true writer really is the reader. If the guidelines replaced " compile it as provided", with " compile and tests it as provided" your suggestion would have some merit. We even document[1] the maven skip tests build option. [1] http://activemq.apache.org/building.html On 29 January 20

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hi Claus, thanks for testing all this. I already started working on further improvements of the script, so that we respect environment variables if set in system and add more docs in scripts to make it easier for people to configure it properly. We should list this change in 5.11 new features and

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hi The bin/env script worked fine. Would be good idea to remember to add a note about this in the release notes. Also maybe add a note about it too in the bin/activemq script so people is easier aware of this, and that they should configure the env file, and leave activemq as-is. I am voting +1

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Gary, It's a very simple matter. We release source distributions, not binaries. One cannot reliably build binaries from the source distro. Even with -fae, everything else depending stomp is skipped, so failures may be hiding other problems. I would suggest carefully reviewing the ASF release

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Dan, the test is mixing stomp and openwire and asserting a jms semantic in the event of a stomp disconnect without an unsubscribe. The patch applied broker configuration that makes the test work reliably. Having a reliable redelivery flag semantic has been evolving for some time. Stomp users have n

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hi Claus, there’s a new script in bin folder called “bin/env” where you should configure environment variables. We moved all that from the activemq script to make it all in one place and easier to manage. It should be documented better. Regards -- Dejan Bosanac -- Red Hat, Inc

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hi I gave 5.11.0 a test spin with latest code from Apache Camel and all JMS / Stomp / MQTT modules worked fine and all test passed. I installed latest hawtio web console following Dejans guide and the console works. http://sensatic.net/activemq/activemq-and-hawtio.html But I do seem to have an i

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

+0 Honnestly, I'm not really concerned by the stomp failing tests (and stomp ;)), but I understand that it can "impact" users. Regards JB Le 2015-01-28 18:26, Daniel Kulp a écrit : I’m more or less -1 until someone can more fully explain the issue with the failing tests. The “patch” changes

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

If it doesn't build reliably from src, then I wouldn't suggest we release it. -1 from me On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Gary Tully wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a second release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. > This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. >

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

I’m more or less -1 until someone can more fully explain the issue with the failing tests. The “patch” changes the test, but my question really is whether the original test code is “correct” and is really exposing some flaw in the stomp code that the new patch is really just working around. A

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

+1 On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Gary Tully wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a second release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. > This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. > > Could you review the artifacts and vote? Especially, it would be great if > you coul

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

+1 (non-binding) I gave a kick of the tyres to the broker binary, built the source release and successfully ran a 'quick' subset of the tests (Client, Broker, AMQP, MQTT, LevelDB, Stomp with the below patch). I'd expect most users to grab binaries than build the source or run the tests. and as th

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

-1 (binding). * sigs ok * release artifacts look ok * project does *not* build from source: There are 5 failures in activemq-stomp, all of the following kind: StompTest.testSubscribeWithClientAck:739 null That means that anybody who uses this stomp feature won't be able to upgrade. I think w

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

+1 (non-binding)

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

+1 (non-binding) The {{org.apache.activemq.bugs.AMQ2149LevelDBTest}} test fails in 5.10.0 with at least similar symptoms , so there's no reason to hold up 5.11.0 for this. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-tp4690430p4690504.html

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

On 01/27/2015 05:53 PM, artnaseef wrote: That makes sense. Here's what I'll do - if I can get the test to fail on 5.10, then I'll ignore it for the 5.11 release. Let me know if you have seen this test failing under 5.10 and I'll skip it. Either way, I'll keep tracking down the issue. -- Vie

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

That makes sense. Here's what I'll do - if I can get the test to fail on 5.10, then I'll ignore it for the 5.11 release. Let me know if you have seen this test failing under 5.10 and I'll skip it. Either way, I'll keep tracking down the issue. -- View this message in context: http://activemq

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Apologies Art, I should have given you a heads up. That test failure (it always works locally) is an old nugget[1] that has been on the todo list for a long time. I did not think it should hold up the release. For the past three weeks I have been tracking down regressions and failures and intermitt

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hey Gary - what happened to the test failures on AMQ2149LevelDBTest.log? As you may have noticed - I was still working on that one as I had the impression from our prior discussion that it was in the path to getting 5.11 released. Was there a change on that front? -- View this message in cont

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

I found one regression in stomp - fixed via https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq.git;a=commit;h=1e5d2127 which shows the config workaround. I think the use case is tenuous at best so I don't think it should block the release. On 26 January 2015 at 21:02, Gary Tully wrote: > Hi fol

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

+1 On Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 1:03 PM Gary Tully wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a second release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 > release. > This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. > > Could you review the artifacts and vote? Especially, it would be great if > you coul

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

+1 On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Gary Tully wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a second release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. > This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. > > Could you review the artifacts and vote? Especially, it would be great if > you coul

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

+1 On 01/26/2015 04:02 PM, Gary Tully wrote: Hi folks, I've just cut a second release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. Could you review the artifacts and vote? Especially, it would be great if you could test the unix shel

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

thanks James, I tidied up those two issues. On 27 January 2015 at 14:11, James Green wrote: > Are you aware that the list of resolved issues includes issues marked > "Unresolved"? See AMQ-5217 > and AMQ-5537

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Are you aware that the list of resolved issues includes issues marked "Unresolved"? See AMQ-5217 and AMQ-5537 for instance. On 27 January 2015 at 11:37, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote: > Hi > > +1 (non-

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hi +1 (non-binding). Quick tests on Karaf 2.4.1 and 3.0.3-SNAPSHOT ok. Regards Krzysztof On 26.01.2015 22:02, Gary Tully wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a second release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. > This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. > > Could yo

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

+1 kicked its tyres and seems fine On 27/01/15 10:45, Dejan Bosanac wrote: +1 Regards -- Dejan Bosanac -- Red Hat, Inc. dbosa...@redhat.com Twitter: @dejanb Blog: http://sensatic.net ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Gary

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

+1 Regards -- Dejan Bosanac -- Red Hat, Inc. dbosa...@redhat.com Twitter: @dejanb Blog: http://sensatic.net ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Gary Tully wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a second release candidate for the

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hi folks, I've just cut a second release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements. Could you review the artifacts and vote? Especially, it would be great if you could test the unix shell script and make sure there's no any regression

Re: [CANCEL][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Turns out that I had another process running on 8080, so the tests were fine. I made a minor update nevertheless to use available ports instead of hardcoding. We should probably consolidate in a utility across all tests. Not something to hold the release though. Running full tests now, but it'l

Re: [CANCEL][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hi Gary, I can confirm that your changes fixed the leveldb issue. I did a full build, and there are a couple of failures in http, I will look at them in the morning. Looks like port port in use conflict due to slow shutdown from previous test (I don't think I have anything running on 8080). Be

Re: [CANCEL][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

It seems there are two issues - a 2s session expiry and 500ms tick leaves too much room for skipped pings and client and server mismatch in session expiry. In the tests the single zk server stays alive there are no dropped connections. One of the problems i encountered seems to be https://issues.ap

[CANCEL][VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Cancelling this vote. Let’s try to get to the bottom of these failures. Regards -- Dejan Bosanac -- Red Hat, Inc. dbosa...@redhat.com Twitter: @dejanb Blog: http://sensatic.net ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Gary Tully wrote

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

-1 : let's get a clean bill of health on the test run. org.apache.activemq.leveldb.test.ReplicatedLevelDBBrokerTest#testAMQ4837viaJMX will fail for me locally about 60% of the time, with a zk "Client session timed out," I will try and find the root cause but I think we should add an @Ignore and not

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hi, +1. As a user of ActiveMQ, I would say, please release the new version. We are waiting on ActiveMQ-5.10.0 or ActiveMQ-5.11 because of couple of bug fixes. It would be helpful if you guys can release it fast. Thanks, Anuj -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nab

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Happy New Year everybody. I think the 'veto' term is quite pervasive in the release votes. Cut'n'paste, whatever the reason, I hope all PMC members know that when it comes to releases it is not actually a veto, just a negative vote [1]. That doesn't mean it can be taken lightly both when casti

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

-1 If the build does not succeed, we need to address that before releasing. James On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. This > release has > 127 bug fixes and improvements. > > Could you revie

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

I would also re-word your VOTE options here. A -1 is not a "veto", since releases cannot be vetoed. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've just cut a release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. This > release has > 127 bug fixes and improvements. >

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Yeah, we'll see what the rest of the community says. Let's think of it from a user point of view. You get a new release and the tests fail, what is your confidence in using it in production? I do have the build results (and they are reproducible). I will spend most of the time with my family t

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hi Hadrian, thanks for reviewing the release. Yeah, these leveldb tests never worked quite well in certain environments. https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/ActiveMQ/job/ActiveMQ/org.apache.activemq$activemq-leveldb-store/ I tried to fixed that in the previous days, but apparently there are

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

-1. Sigs look good. Downloaded and started a full build from the source distribution. Tests fail when run from the source distribution, see below. Does anybody else experience the same result? We should consider moving the source distribution to apache-activemq. The current activemq-parent name

[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0

Hi folks, I've just cut a release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release. This release has 127 bug fixes and improvements. Could you review the artifacts and vote? Especially, it would be great if you could test unix shell script and make sure there's no any regressions on the platform you