[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       activemq-dev
Subject:    Re: HEADS-UP 2.25.1 Next week
From:       Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic () gmail ! com>
Date:       2022-09-21 16:30:07
Message-ID: CAKF+bsoQbusRA7LqmaJZM6zt8KGt3n_M8d4ySJb4mv29jDd+Aw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

and I just removed the 2.x branch

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:20 AM Clebert Suconic
<clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let's do this as 2.x then?   Probably 2.27. I'm cutting 2.26 today.
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:33 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On the logging bit, I would note there are numerous cases of 2.x
>> releases adjusting stuff in ways that similarly needed specific
>> handling 'during a normal upgrade procedure' per
>> https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/versions.html.
>> Even the existing logging bits have clearly had multiple cases of
>> small upgrade adjustments being required. The handling that would be
>> needed this time is pretty trivial (create a provided properties file,
>> only if bringing all old broker config files along as-is and not
>> 'creating' a new broker instance) and so really along very similar
>> lines to those prior instances.
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 16:05, Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > In my opinion there is a bit of more work to do before 3.0 could be
>> > released. For example:
>> >
>> >  - Remove all deprecated methods, config, etc. (this is not a small amount
>> > of work)
>> >  - Update all the config with the new inclusive terms
>> >
>> > Personally I don't really see how we could do the logging change on 2.x as
>> > it's a breaking change. Folks won't be able to follow the normal upgrade
>> > procedure [1] since it will break their logging configuration.
>> >
>> > I also think that anything we want to remove in 3.0 should be deprecated
>> > for at least 1 release of 2.x.
>> >
>> >
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/upgrading.html
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:43 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > hmmm... this is actually pointless.. (the 2.x branch so far).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I had to cherry-pick *everything* except to 1 commit:
>> > >
>> > > ARTEMIS-3987Removing ActiveMQ Artemis Rest from the codebase - commit
>> > > e654eba
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > We could definitely release from main right now...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > and I'm wondering if we shouldn't make the logging change on a 2.x
>> > > branch.... I don't see much else beyond logging to warrant a 3.x
>> > > branch (we can certainly make a plan for a 3.x and we could / should
>> > > start working on it).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > What do you think?
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Clebert Suconic
>> > > <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > @Gary Tully unless you don't consider removing activemq-rest and
>> > > > changing the logging framework a change big enough to warrant a bump
>> > > > to 3.0. if the consensus is to keep main as 2.x we can certainly
>> > > > rename it back and do the release from main. I thought we should
>> > > > rename it based on these two things.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Clebert Suconic
>> > > > <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > maini is already 3.0... removed Rest, and soon the logging change will
>> > > > > be put it in there... If I release from main now, it will be called
>> > > > > 3.0, and we will have to do a 4.0 when we bring in the logging
>> > > > > changes.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So, I would rather cherry-pick stuff into 2.x
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (I will go ahead and remove 2.25.x now)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 8:46 AM Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > would it make sense to just cut 2.26.0 from main?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 02:11, Clebert Suconic
>> > > > > > <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I am renaming the branch as 2.x (instead of 2.25.x).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Some of the candidates to cherry-pick categorize it as an
>> > > enhancement,
>> > > > > > > so it would make the release next week to be named 2.26.0 instead
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > 2.25.1) (same branch, just promoting it to 2.26 due to an
>> > > enhancement
>> > > > > > > being part of it).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > for that reason I am pushing a 2.x branch and I will remove the
>> > > 2.25.x
>> > > > > > > branch (after a few days).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:40 AM Clebert Suconic
>> > > > > > > <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I would like to do a 2.25.1 next week (monday or tuesday).
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Please add any commits into 2.25.x (just pushed a new branch)...
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > please use cherry-pick -x on commits from main only. (git
>> > > cherry-pick
>> > > > > > > > -x <commit-id>)
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Clebert Suconic
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Clebert Suconic
>> > >
>> > >
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]