activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0
Date Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:33:49 GMT
Hadrian,
the true writer really is the reader. If the guidelines replaced "
compile it as provided", with " compile and tests it as provided" your
suggestion would have some merit.
We even document[1] the maven skip tests build option.

[1] http://activemq.apache.org/building.html

On 29 January 2015 at 12:06, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary,
>
> It's a very simple matter. We release source distributions, not binaries.
> One cannot reliably build binaries from the source distro. Even with -fae,
> everything else depending stomp is skipped, so failures may be hiding other
> problems. I would suggest carefully reviewing the ASF release policy [1], in
> particular the #what and #approving-a-release sections. Note the use of
> terms "must" (pmc must obey requirements [...]) and "may" (releases may not
> be vetoed).
>
> How about re-cutting the release after making sure the tests pass reliably?
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>
>
>
> On 01/29/2015 06:17 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>>
>> Dan,
>> the test is mixing stomp and openwire and asserting a jms semantic in
>> the event of a stomp disconnect without an unsubscribe. The patch
>> applied broker configuration that makes the test work reliably. Having
>> a reliable redelivery flag semantic has been evolving for some time.
>> Stomp users have never had redelivery flag semantics that could be
>> relied on so they won't care. The full story is in the commit log.
>>
>> On 28 January 2015 at 17:26, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m more or less -1 until someone can more fully explain the issue with
>>> the failing tests.
>>>
>>> The “patch” changes the test, but my question really is whether the
>>> original test code is “correct” and is really exposing some flaw in the
>>> stomp code that the new patch is really just working around.   Are users
>>> that are using stomp going to have to make the same changes that were done
>>> in the test in their environments?   If so, that’s a bigger issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 26, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> I've just cut a second release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0
>>>> release.
>>>> This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements.
>>>>
>>>> Could you review the artifacts and vote? Especially, it would be great
>>>> if
>>>> you could test the unix shell script and make sure there's no any
>>>> regressions
>>>> on the platform you're using.
>>>>
>>>> The list of resolved issues is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12324951
>>>>
>>>> You can get binary distributions here:
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1014/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/5.11.0/
>>>>
>>>> Source archives are here:
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1014/org/apache/activemq/activemq-parent/5.11.0/
>>>>
>>>> Maven2 repository is at:
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1014/
>>>>
>>>> Source tag:
>>>>
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq.git;a=tag;h=f6eb86ee31640427d0f953847f38fcf81a71f9e1
>>>>
>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache ActiveMQ 5.11.0
>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments)
>>>>
>>>> Here's my +1
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>
>

Mime
View raw message