activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ffrenchm <>
Subject Re: About ActiveMQ 5.3 and issues management
Date Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:23:08 GMT

Thanks for you answer Gary... 

You're increasing my motivation to continue my effort on activemq and that's
make me very happy :) Some others issues with corrections and JUNIT tests
should come soon :)


Gary Tully wrote:
> There is no schedule as such, save that I think we should wait till
> camel 2.0 is released and the outstanding (13) scheduled issues from
> are resolved along with anything critical that pops up in the mean
> time. It is very hard to put an exact time line on this, in addition,
> the testing that follow a release candidate can often precipitate new
> issues.
> The push out of issues to 5.3.4 was the first effort to constrain the
> release. I tried to retain any issue that had a patch and junit test.
> Part of the intention was to solicit response, so in your case, it
> looks like AMQ-2216 should be reinstated as fix for 5.3.
> We welcome, appreciate and want to encourage your contribution so
> apologies if it looked like it was being ignored.
> 2009/7/16 ffrenchm <>:
>> Hello,
>> I noticed that many issue from ActiveMQ 5.3 has been moved to ActiveMQ
>> 5.4
>> and unscheduled. So I've the impression that ActiveMQ 5.3 will be
>> delivered
>> soon. Am I false ? Where can I find the schedule of ActiveMQ 5.3 delivery
>> ?
>> I noticed that for ActiveMQ 5.2 the delivery is based on a svn TAG.
>> That's
>> mean no patch or SP delivery on this version. Will you apply the same
>> policy
>> for ActiveMQ 5.3 ?
>> Finally I noticed that the issues I raised like many others has been
>> moved
>> to 'unscheduled'. My problem is that for one of these issues (AMQ-2216) I
>> provided a correction with JUNIT test and I'm currently using ActiveMQ
>> 5.3
>> with this correction. The aim of my work is to make work ActiveMQ at
>> production.
>> So I would like to get a feed back from ActiveMQ experts on this
>> correction
>> and I would like to know your point on how I'm supposed to deliver
>> ActiveMQ
>> if this correction is not scheduled on any ActiveMQ delivery ? From my
>> point
>> it seems I need to work independently on ActiveMQ source code and finally
>> deliver a forked ActiveMQ which finally means:
>> + a dubious correction report from ActiveMQ trunk on my side.
>> + a fall of my motivation to provide correction and JUNIT test in order
>> to
>> help ActiveMQ community as it's not enough to get a quicker resolution on
>> my
>> issue.
>> + finally a fall of potential commiters on ActiveMQ side (in this case me
>> because 'never say never' :).
>> I don't like this solution because I prefer to work with the ActiveMQ
>> community as much as possible. But as I've also delivery deadline I must
>> choose the most proper way to achieve my aim and today it's seems for me
>> the
>> most proper way is to fork ActiveMQ on my side and work independently on
>> this fork.
>> Thanks for your answers
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at
> -- 
> Open Source Integration

View this message in context:
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

View raw message