qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cliff Schmidt" <cliffschm...@gmail.com>
Subject Fixing the MINA_README.txt (was Re: [VOTE] Relaese Qpid Milestone 1 - (Java, Python, Ruby))
Date Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:29:45 GMT
On 12/1/06, Cliff Schmidt <cliffschmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/06, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please vote to publish the Milestone 1 release. Please take some time
> > to download the distributions, review them and test them in your environment
> > if you have not done so already before voting.
> +1

Although I just voted +1 for this release, I do think the
MINA_README.txt wording could still be improved; I just didn't think
it was essential for this release.  The two improvements would be to
fix grammatical errors and to change the URLs to http rather than
https.  Committers should know to use https, but others with
write-access may be confused.

Regarding the grammatical changes, the file currently reads, "However,
I would have chosen different words for the MINA_README file.  It
currently reads:
"The current MINA version is taken from rev 463149.
If you need to get the source please visit
If you do svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mina/trunk -r463149
visit http://mina.apache.org/ to get more info about the project"

So, I think the second and third line should be s/http/https/, but the
second through fourth lines also just don't read very clearly.  I
guess my suggestion would be:

"This Qpid distribution includes a snapshot of MINA that has not been
released by the Apache MINA project.  The snapshot is taken from MINA
rev 463149.  To obtain the associated source code, use a Subversion
client to access the repository and check out this revision using the
following command:
svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mina/trunk -r463149

For more information about MINA, visit http://mina.apache.org/."

I personally think it would be worth updating the file before
releasing M1.  I also don't think such a minor update to a README file
has any chance of affecting the votes already cast (I would feel very
differently about a major text change or about *any* code change).
So, while I don't think it has to be changed for this release, I also
don't see a problem if one of the committers thinks it's worth
updating now rather than for M2.  However, if there's any concern at
all about the wording or the process, it would probably be best to
leave it for M2.


View raw message