Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid JMS 1.10.0

+1 non binding On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:07 PM Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 15:32, Robbie Gemmell > wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > I have put together a spin for a 1.10.0 Qpid JMS client release, > > please give it a test out and vote accordingly. > > > > The staged source

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid Proton-J 0.34.1

+1 I ran my long running tests that were incurring into some leaks, and they were all fine. I also run some leak tests in artemis, and they are fine. On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:35 PM Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 18:00, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > I have

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid ProtonJ2 1.0.0-M2

Wouldn’t make more sense to call it ProtonJ 2.0 instead of ProtonJ2 1.0? Not voting against it. But it would be a better name IMO. On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 4:23 PM Oleksandr Rudyy wrote: > +1 > > * verified signatures and checksums > * built and ran tests from source bundle > * ran HelloWorld

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid JMS 0.57.0

+1 non binding. On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:52 PM Timothy Bish wrote: > On 3/15/21 1:29 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I have put together a spin for a 0.57.0 Qpid JMS client release, > > please give it a test out and vote accordingly. > > > > The source and binary archives can

Re: [DISCUSS/NOTICE] Renaming default git repo branches to "main"

+1 If you hit any issues please update here. As I’m also doing the same in Artemis On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:08 PM Timothy Bish wrote: > +1 > > On 3/11/21 7:21 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I would like to propose renaming our git repository default branches > > from "master"

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid JMS 0.55.0

+1 non binding On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:48 AM Timothy Bish wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:34 PM Robbie Gemmell > wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > I have put together a spin for a 0.55.0 Qpid JMS client release, > > please give it a test out and vote accordingly. > > > > The source and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid Proton-J 0.33.8

+1 (non binding) I tested ActiveMQ Artemis validating the maven repo provided (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-1209), and I double checked and issue I faced (PROTON-2297) was fixed on the provided maven repo. On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:22 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid Proton 0.33.0

I tested a bug fix I dealt with recently. +1 (non binding) On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 4:07 PM Andrew Stitcher wrote: > On Thu, 2020-11-12 at 15:21 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I have put together a spin for a Qpid Proton 0.33.0 release, please > > give it a test out and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid Proton-J 0.33.5

+1 non binding. On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:06 PM Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Hi folks, > > I have put together a spin for a Qpid Proton-J 0.33.5 release, please > test it and vote accordingly. > > The files can be grabbed from: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/proton-j/0.33.5-rc1/ > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid JMS 0.27.0

+1 On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Timothy Bish wrote: > On 11/01/2017 12:37 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> I have put together a spin for a 0.27.0 Qpid JMS client release, please >> give it a test out and vote accordingly. >> >> The source and binary

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid JMS 0.24.0

+1 (non binding) I ran the activemq artemis tests, integration-tests/*/amqp and no regressions found. Updated both proton and qpid-jms and worked fine. I have a branch ready to push artemis upstream as soon as this is released.. thanks. On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Robbie Gemmell

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid Proton-J 0.18.0

+1 On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM Timothy Bish wrote: > +1 > > * validated signatures and sums > * built from source and ran the tests, > * built ActiveMQ using the staged artifacts and ran the tests > * built Qpid JMS using the staged artifacts and ran the tests. > *

Re: Message Filters

Message filtering as in the JMS api? This is artemis, but the JMS API would work the same on qpid broker: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/master/examples/features/standard/queue-selector Sorry if I misunderstood your question. On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Flores, Paul A.

Re: [DISCUSS] Ending support for Java 7 in the Java broker and JMS clients

+1. We have had a similar discussion on ActiveMQ some time ago, and AFAIK both Artemis and ActiveMQ are Java8+ now. On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > I'd like to propose dropping support for Java 7 in the broker and both > JMS clients in their next

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Qpid C++ and Qpid Python to Git

+1 (non binding) On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 07:40 -0700, Justin Ross wrote: >> As proposed and discussed at the following links: >> >> >> http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Qpid-source-code-reorg-update-tt764 >>

Re: [DISCUSS] removing the 'proton/contrib/proton-jms' module

+1 On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Timothy Bish wrote: > On 04/26/2016 10:41 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> As per the subject, I'd like to suggest removing >> 'proton/contrib/proton-jms' module. >> >> It was written as part of adding AMQP 1.0 support to the ActiveMQ 5.x