[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Discuss] ActiveMQ CPP Client

On 12/7/18 12:01 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
Thank you for the additional background information.

So creating a 3.10.x branch off of current 3.9.x branch, than merging
fixes/features to that branch would be acceptable?

I checked and there already is a 3.10.x branch which I must have been intending to switch to at some point.  You might be best to just drop that branch and recut from current 3.9.x as that would be the best starting point for patches.  Once moved you might also want to check if moving the supported APR lib versions up wasn't also a good idea given the time between releases.

I think there is some other work you might need to do which is that on quite a few distros now the cppunit stuff won't build because they've removed the package configuration script and gone to PKG configs so you might want to test on more than one distro and or version # (I recall some reports of problems on Fedora releases after 25 or 26)

Also if you aren't testing on Windows you should build there and test as well because that will often show you issues that need addressing before release.  Given the age of the code I'd be surprised if there weren't some build and test issues that needed addressing.

Once a collection of patches have been applied to the 3.10.x, is there
a release process that out lines how to get this published?

http://activemq.apache.org/cms/creating-distributions.html seems to be

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:10 PM Timothy Bish <tabish121@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My bad, I missed the CC. to dev on this so ignore my comment on keeping
in dev.  :)

On 12/7/18 11:17 AM, Jamie G. wrote:
Hi Tim,

Can i make master 3.10.0-SNAPSHOT or 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT? Which is preferred?

In testing code on master the test suites passed on Linux & Mac OSX.
Can you provide more details as to how master is not in a releasable
state? Are there a collection of Jira cards reflecting what needs to
be done to make Master releasable?

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:29 PM Timothy Bish <tabish121@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/5/18 6:44 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
Hi All,

I've started looking into a number of open cards on AMQ CPP client.

I've noticed that master is still 3.9.0-snapshot, when it likely
should be 3.10.0-SNAPSHOT now.
Master is not in a releasable state so all work you plan to do to create
patch releases should be directed to the patch branches unless you plan
on working on getting master into a releasable state which would be 4.0
but I doubt you plan to commit that much time to it so I'd suggest
planning on a 3.x release.

One supplied patch would bump openssl version to 1.0.2 from 0.9.8.
Would that bump be sufficient cause to increment the minor version?
3.9.x is know to work on that older release so publishing a release in
that series would break the compatibility that would be expected from
that version range and so it would not be a drop in replacement.  The
more sensible thing to do is to move onto a 3.10.x release series where
you break that know working range and state that it now requires OpenSSL
1.0.x or whatever is the acceptable version.  That way a hotfix release
of 3.9.x is still possible for anyone stuck on old system.

Once these patches are reviewed, and accepted - is there a release
process for the AMQ CPP client?
You would need to update autoconf versions numbers for the release,
updates code to reflect the release numbers and other things I'm
probably forgetting.  Then you need to test on windows, linux and mac
with both SSL libs and no SSL libs installed to ensure the changes don't
break the build and test process.  There are both unit tests and
integration tests that you need to get building and run to validate
things work on each platform.

Once you validated the code works then you can you the mvn build to have
a set of archive built which you can then sign and checksum for release.

Tim, since you did a lot of work on this, your opinion would gladly be


Tim Bish

Tim Bish

Tim Bish