osdir.com


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

Re: [Discuss] ActiveMQ CPP Client


I've also merged https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-619 into
branch 3.10.x, taking care to ensure no tabs slipped into the patch :)

Cheers,
Jamie
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:44 PM Jamie G. <jamie.goodyear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I've created the 3.10.x branch based upon 3.9.x branch code.
>
> I'll start focusing patches towards that target.
>
> Cheers,
> Jamie
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:20 PM Timothy Bish <tabish121@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/7/18 12:48 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
> > > Is that 3.10.x branch possibly local to your environment?
> > >
> > > I'm not seeing it on my pull...
> >
> > Ah, yes, never pushed, so should be good to go then on new branch
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:52 PM Timothy Bish <tabish121@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> 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
> > >>> pre-github.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Jamie
> > >>> 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?
> > >>>>>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-619)
> > >>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>> appreciated.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>> Jamie
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Tim Bish
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Tim Bish
> > >>>>
> > >> --
> > >> Tim Bish
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bish
> >