Hekp with Dispatch Build "difficulties"

2016-02-10 Thread Flores, Paul A.
I have been trying to get Dispatch 0.5 to build. I am seeing the following issue. Can anyone help me get past this issue? [ 26%] Building C object src/CMakeFiles/qpid-dispatch.dir/lrp.c.o cc1: warnings being treated as errors /home/pflores/shop/qpid-dispatch-0.5/src/lrp.c: In function ‘qd_l

RE: Rejecting/Accepting message with Qpid Proton-J

2016-02-10 Thread Paolo Patierno
I was quite sure to have already tried with windows size greater than zero and it didn't work but ... now it works great :-) It's my fault on something of course ... thanks ! Paolo PatiernoSenior Software Engineer Windows Embedded & IoTMicrosoft Azure Advisor Twitter : @ppatierno Linkedi

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 3 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Robbie Gemmell
On 10 February 2016 at 14:04, Justin Ross wrote: > Hi, everyone. RC 2 had some embedded build output, which this RC removes. > Apart from that removal, it has the same content as RC 2. > > The proposed release artifacts: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/proton/0.12.0-rc3/ > > P

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 3 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Robbie Gemmell
Thanks, saved me sending that :) Robbie On 10 February 2016 at 15:35, Rob Godfrey wrote: > To be pedantic, only PMC members votes are officially considered binding > [1], and votes from committers who are not on the PMC are not... However in > general as a community we would encourage anyone who

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 3 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Jakub Scholz
+1 * I checked the JMS client with 0.12.0-rc3 against MRG-M 3.0 & 3.2 and against Qpid C++ broker (trunk with 0.12.0-rc3) * I checked the Qpid Messaging C++ client build with 0.12.0-rc3 against MRG-M 3.0 and 3.2 On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Justin Ross wrote: > Hi, everyone. RC 2 had some

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 3 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Justin Ross
Thanks, Ganesh. BTW, you can vote. When we tally up the results, we separate the binding (committer) from the non-binding votes, but we use all the votes in our decision nonetheless. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Ganesh Murthy wrote: > I cannot vote but I did the following on Fedora 22 - >

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 3 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Rob Godfrey
To be pedantic, only PMC members votes are officially considered binding [1], and votes from committers who are not on the PMC are not... However in general as a community we would encourage anyone who has done any sort of validation of the release to provide their feedback via (non-binding) voting

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 3 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Ganesh Murthy
+1 (non-binding) Thanks. - Original Message - From: "Justin Ross" To: users@qpid.apache.org Cc: pro...@qpid.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 10:29:49 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release RC 3 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0 Thanks, Ganesh. BTW, you can vote. When we tally up the results,

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 3 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Ganesh Murthy
I cannot vote but I did the following on Fedora 22 - 1. Downloaded and compiled the proton 0.12.0 RC3 source and ran all unit tests (including the ones I added) successfully 2. Made dispatch router master use Qpid Proton 0.12.0 RC 3. Ran dispatch unit tests successfully. 3. Made sure that the u

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 3 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Justin Ross
The RC 3 maven repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-1063 On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Justin Ross wrote: > Hi, everyone. RC 2 had some embedded build output, which this RC > removes. Apart from that removal, it has the same content as RC 2. > > The pr

[VOTE] Release RC 3 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Justin Ross
Hi, everyone. RC 2 had some embedded build output, which this RC removes. Apart from that removal, it has the same content as RC 2. The proposed release artifacts: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/proton/0.12.0-rc3/ Please indicate your vote below. If you favor releasing the 0.1

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 2 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Justin Ross
Sorry, folks. It seems I messed up this one. This vote is closed. I'll raise a new one as soon as I correct the problem. Justin On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:36 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On 9 February 2016 at 14:11, Justin Ross wrote: > > The artifacts proposed for release: > > > > https:

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 2 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Robbie Gemmell
On 10 February 2016 at 10:36, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On 9 February 2016 at 14:11, Justin Ross wrote: >> The artifacts proposed for release: >> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/proton/0.12.0-rc2/ >> >> Please indicate your vote below. If you favor releasing the 0.12.0 RC 2 >> b

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 2 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Robbie Gemmell
On 9 February 2016 at 14:11, Justin Ross wrote: > The artifacts proposed for release: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/proton/0.12.0-rc2/ > > Please indicate your vote below. If you favor releasing the 0.12.0 RC 2 > bits as 0.12.0 GA, vote +1. If you have reason to think the R

Re: [VOTE] Release RC 2 as Qpid Proton 0.12.0

2016-02-10 Thread Robbie Gemmell
On 9 February 2016 at 14:11, Justin Ross wrote: > The artifacts proposed for release: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/proton/0.12.0-rc2/ > > Please indicate your vote below. If you favor releasing the 0.12.0 RC 2 > bits as 0.12.0 GA, vote +1. If you have reason to think the R

Re: Dequeuing message with null persistence Id.

2016-02-10 Thread Toralf Lund
On 09/02/16 16:51, Gordon Sim wrote: On 02/09/2016 01:09 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: I can reproduce the problem every time I try now. The other broker is using the same QPid version, and I think it's supposed to be set up the same way. It's managed by someone else (who didn't understand the error me