-1 (binding), due to AMQ-8226.
Regards
JB
> Le 8 avr. 2021 à 13:22, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit :
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.15 to your vote. We fixed the issue identified
> in AMQ-8219 and this is a new take on 5.15.15 release.
>
> This release includes important fi
Hi Charlie
I guess you mean using bin/activemq start|stop right ?
Before cancelling the release, I will check. I tested without problem but with
an unique broker on my machine (I didn’t try to start several brokers on the
same machine).
I will investigate and eventually cancel this vote to fi
Hi team,
-1 (non-binding)
We have discovered a regression from 5.15.15
[https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AMQ/issues/AMQ-8226] that allows
multiple ActiveMQ processes to be started simultaneously due to a change in the
./bin/activemq script which causes the check for a running ActiveMQ p
+1 Approve
--
Kimm King(kimmk...@apache.org/kimmk...@163.com)
Apache Dubbo PMC & ShardingSphere PMC Member
At 2021-04-08 19:22:37, "Jean-Baptiste Onofre" wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.15 to your vote. We fixed the issue identified
>in AMQ-8219 and this is a
+1
Lets get is out so we can concentrate on 5.16/5.17.
Dan
> On Apr 8, 2021, at 7:22 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.15 to your vote. We fixed the issue identified
> in AMQ-8219 and this is a new take on 5.15.15 release.
>
> This release i
Just to note, the issue I raised with the first cut having release
archives mismatched between the dist repo and the maven repo looks to
have been resolved for this second cut.
Given my other previous comments I'm still -0 on this one overall
personally though (or at least, it completing before a
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been out of the office a few days.
I will change my vote to +1 so we can go ahead and get this vote closed out
(hopefully one more person will vote)
The main thing to me was just not announcing EOL on 5.15.x and 5.15.15 as
the last release until 5.16.2 is re
Just to be clear: as you can see in my proposal email, I proposed to do 5.16.2
AND 5.15.15, and then announce 5.15.15 as the last release on the 5.15.x series.
So, we are aligned with the proposal.
Regards
JB
> Le 12 avr. 2021 à 17:38, Christopher Shannon
> a écrit :
>
> -0, I won't veto if
And you didn’t see my message on the mailing list: I proposed 5.15.15 as it’s
ready to be released, including CVE dependency fixes.
5.16.2 is not yet fully ready, I’m working on the redelivery plugin issue.
5.16.2 will follow soon.
Regards
JB
> Le 12 avr. 2021 à 17:38, Christopher Shannon
>
I meant I won't -1 as you can't veto releases (only code changes)
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:38 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -0, I won't veto if others want to go ahead but as Robbie pointed out it
> was agreed upon to do 5.16.2 first because 5.15.15 will be
-0, I won't veto if others want to go ahead but as Robbie pointed out it
was agreed upon to do 5.16.2 first because 5.15.15 will be the last release
of 5.15.x and is EOL. This way we have a release ready to point to for
others to use when announcing EOL.
The discussion was originally here:
http://
11 matches
Mail list logo
