Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robbie.gemmell@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFitrpR9PpHUNmDES-nyKrnzo0djaxQ0yznht7nT8Tqd-UpJVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CANVjZ_TLkvMdDkLZs+qTQovYtqFJSvOjuam_p=9Ms_vgfZgDbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFitrpR9PpHUNmDES-nyKrnzo0djaxQ0yznht7nT8Tqd-UpJVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:35:38 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAFitrpQRB7s9HRyQ31ci1vrKeWAXq2OeTvUkemFz=JSBLWyDkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 0.30 release update - beta is available
From: Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
To: "users@qpid.apache.org" <users@qpid.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134604acb8acb0500ab1816

--001a1134604acb8acb0500ab1816
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Next up, java binaries.

I was able to run the Java broker, run the 0-x and 1.0 JMS client examples
against it, install the QMF2 broker plugin, and finally run the QMF2 GUI
and QpidConfig tools against it. This mostly went well, though I
encountered a small issue when running the QpidConfig tool against the Java
broker where the tool would throw an exception. This works against the C++
broker, so the difference may be in either the behaviour of the Java broker
itself, or the QMF2 broker plugin.

Things of note:

The Java binaries published to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/0.30-beta/ dont appear to be
the same binaries produced by the maven/source build, they contain
different heirachies. I think they should actually be the same files,
having two different binary release archives for the same bits seems weird.
The archives will get published to maven central during the release build,
and anyone later building from the source release would get the same, but
whats on the website would currently differ.

There is a binary being created at the following location for the 1.0
client websocket plugin, which isnt being distributed currently. Should it
be?
amqp-1-0-client-websocket/target/qpid-amqp-1-0-client-websocket-0.30-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz.

qpid-java-broker-0.30-beta-bin.tar.gz:
- Relating to the above, there is a 1.0 websocket plugin for the broker
that isnt being distributed, because the broker pom doesnt depend on it.
Should it?

qpid-qmf2-tools-0.30-beta-bin.tar.gz:
- For QpidConfig, if i try to list the queues or exchanges I would get an
exception:

[gemmellr@localhost bin]$ ./QpidConfig.sh -a guest/guest@localhost:5672
queues
Queue Name                                    Attributes
======================================================================
TempQueue359495ce-d501-46b0-863a-9ab46ad36ce2 auto-del excl Exception in
thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
    at org.apache.qpid.qmf2.tools.QpidConfig.queueList(QpidConfig.java:679)
    at org.apache.qpid.qmf2.tools.QpidConfig.<init>(QpidConfig.java:1467)
    at org.apache.qpid.qmf2.tools.QpidConfig.main(QpidConfig.java:1540)

qpid-broker-plugins-management-qmf2-0.30-beta
- Nothing to report

qpid-java-client-0.30-beta-bin.tar.gz:
- Nothing to report

qpid-java-amqp-1-0-client-jms-0.30-beta-bin.tar.gz
- Nothing to report

Robbie

On 15 August 2014 12:07, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> I am giving the beta a look over now. First up, source artifacts.
>
> qpid-0.30-beta.tar.gz:
> - Empty directories rooted at extras/qmf/src/py/qmf2-prototype/
> - Empty directories rooted at cpp/bindings/qmf/
> - I didnt spot anything else including the 'extras/sasl' directory from
> the full archive. Is that stuff still used? Seems to have autotools build
> files in there too.
> - There looks to be a number of files that can and should be licensed that
> currently aren't. I'll take a pass at the Java related ones when I'm done
> looking over the beta.RAT output from the soon to be killed 'full release'
> archive is now available at:
> http://people.apache.org/~robbie/qpid/0.30/0.30beta_rat_output.txt
>
>
> For the individual component source artifacts, I noted these points:
>
> qpid-cpp-0.30-beta.tar.gz
> - The LICENCE file contains the Boost licence. If we dont ship
> Boost-licenced files, it shouldnt. If we do, it should probably indicate
> where they are.
> - The NOTICE file contents are mostly junk and should be cleaned out.
>
> qpid-java-0.30-beta.tar.gz:
> - It might be better to adjust the version numbers before cutting the
> source archives, so that it will match up to the binaries published to the
> staging repo with the adjusted version, and any 'mvn install' usage of the
> beta/RC sources is segregated. This would mean the examples only work
> against locally installed clients, since they wont be able to resolve
> against the remote snapshots, but I guess thats really the correct result
> since it stops them being accidentally used against any mismatched
> snapshots created later.
>
> qpid-python-0.30-beta.tar.gz:
> - There is a 'build' dir included.
> - The NOTICE file contents are mostly junk and should be cleaned out.
> - The RELEASE_NOTES files is about Qpid 0.8. We should probably just
> delete it.
>
> qpid-qmf-0.30-beta.tar.gz:
> - There is a 'build' dir included.
> - The NOTICE file contents are mostly junk and should be cleaned out.
>
> qpid-tests-0.30-beta.tar.gz:
> - There is a 'build' dir included.
> - The NOTICE file contents are mostly junk and should be cleaned out.
>
> qpid-tools-0.30-beta.tar.gz:
> - There is a 'build' dir included.
> - The NOTICE file contents are mostly junk and should be cleaned out.
> - The LICENCE+NOTICE file contents dont apply to the java bits, which have
> their own, but that isnt clear.
> -- This will be resolved by splitting those into their own archive and
> moving the java +ruby tools source.
> - As with the earlier Java comments, we should perhaps manipulate the
> version prior to cutting the source archive next time.
>
> qpid-wcf-0.30-beta.zip:
> - The NOTICE file contents are mostly junk and need cleaned out.
>
> Robbie
>
> On 12 August 2014 19:19, Justin Ross <jross@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, everyone.  We've now branched for release, and beta is available.
>>
>>   Release branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.30/
>>   Beta revision: 1617305
>>   Beta artifacts: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/0.30-beta/
>>   Beta log output: http://people.apache.org/~jross/qpid-0.30-beta.log
>>   qpid/java maven repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-1008/
>>   qpid/tools/src/java maven repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-1009/
>>
>> Beware! This is pre-release software, for testing only.  Any use outside
>> of
>> testing is contrary to our expectation and very much ill advised.
>>
>> I tested on Fedora 19 x86-64.  All tests passed for me.  Please try the
>> beta in your test environment, in scenarios important to you, and report
>> what you find, posititve or negative.  A big thanks to those who have
>> tested the alpha!
>>
>> I've added the missing binary packages that Robbie mentioned after I
>> published the alpha.  I've also added the a qpid-tests artifact for the
>> content under qpid/tests.
>>
>> Note that the final release artifacts may change somewhat; we're still
>> settling some process details that may affect them.
>>
>> Since we've branched, any further changes for 0.30 follow the "review and
>> approve" rules.  See the release page for more information.  Trunk is now
>> open for development toward 0.32.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>> ---
>> 0.30 release page:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/0.30+Release
>>
>
>

--001a1134604acb8acb0500ab1816--