Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=ZW3PU0GZwR8KF+AOlgrtcfvEQVwrRJCHdexFnduXnYR0491PQV8X5qR+G0YopM1t;
  h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Message-ID: <47E9ADBA.50803@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:58:18 -0400
From: Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ 4.1.2? 4.2? ActiveIO 3.1? releases
References: <9E7839AC-B5C6-4DDD-A149-2B0F99962D5E@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E7839AC-B5C6-4DDD-A149-2B0F99962D5E@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Jencks wrote:
> Geronimo is still using ActiveMQ 4 and I've applied patches for or fixed 
> a few bugs that are fairly important for getting MDBS working reliably 
> and fixing other problems.  So, I'd like to get a release out of the 4.x 
> branch for the upcoming Geronimo 2.1.1 release.

I agree ... it would be great to get those included in 2.1.1.

> 
> I've looked through the jiras for 4.x and applied the patches for ones 
> that I had a clue about.  If anyone else wants something fixed in 4.x 
> please speak up.
> 
> ActiveIO trunk has a fix that we'd like (don't put non-strings in system 
> properties) so I'd like to release ActiveIO 3.1 also.  Since that 
> requires java 5 I'd like to update activemq 4 to use java 5 also (I've 
> tried and this is easy to do).  What's the community feeling on this?  
> Is this a real no-no?  Would it be better to have the version 4.2 and 
> preserve 4.1.x for java 1.4 work?

I'm sure others have more informed opinions on this than I do.  I 
personally can't think of a reason that we should need another java 1.4 
release but it certainly is nice to have the option ... so I think it 
would make sense to do the java 5 work in a 4.2 branch.  Although I have 
to admit that I'm getting a little nervous at all the moving parts for 
2.1.1.

> 
> I'd like to also update the poms to use more modern maven release 
> procedures as well.... I haven't looked into this much yet and will post 
> further when I do.
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
>