qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Godfrey" <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:02:55 GMT
One thing to add (or rather subtract) I think we should either emove from
the distribution or specifically disclaim any claims of functionality for
the Java Clustered Broker.  To my knowledge no-one has been testing this for
a while, and a number of tests have simply been commented out rather than
getting them fixed.  Given we are looking at potentially re-writing the
cluster logic during the coming months I do not think we should be investing
any time into the current cluster codebase.

-- Rob

On 06/03/07, Rafael Schloming <rafaels@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Martin Ritchie wrote:
> > Can the Authors of the Ruby/Python speak for its current state? If we
> > are to release python and ruby clients then all the clients should
> > interop.
>
> Python should be good to go once the interop issues mentioned in another
> thread are addressed. To my knowledge it's been a few months since
> anyone has done anything with Ruby, so I'm rechecking whether it still
> works now. I'll send an email when I have more info.
>
> --Rafael
>
> >
> > On 06/03/07, Das, Kapali Tejeswar <tejeswar.das@iona.com> wrote:
> >> +1 from me.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Tejeswar
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:41 AM
> >> To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I there are now some compelling motivations for releasing an M2.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose an M2, to include:
> >>
> >> - Java Broker
> >> - Java Client
> >> - C++ Broker
> >> - C++ Client
> >> - .NET Client
> >>
> >> I can speak with more authority on some areas than others, but here's
> my
> >> quick summary of major changes since M1:
> >>
> >> - the Java Client/Broker pass the SUN TCK making our offering in this
> >> area
> >> much more attractive
> >> - the persistence rework on the Java broker is complete and
> >> significantly
> >> advances the functionality
> >> - the C++ broker is ready for some real use and should get out there
> for
> >> early adopters
> >> - the C++ client interop has been worked upon/used quite a bit in dev
> >> - the .NET client has been substantially extended and interop improved
> >> - and a lot of JIRAs resolved on all front, bugs and improvements
> >>
> >> We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board,
> >> and
> >> it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
> >>
> >> I think we also considered releasing the python and ruby for M1, but
> >> there
> >> were gaps in the docs etc. I'm happy that we should include these in
> M2,
> >> assuming someone is willing to contribute the required docs etc (and
> >> they
> >> interop).
> >>
> >> I'd like to structure our initial vote as follows:
> >>
> >> - M2 Release including Java, C++ and .NET
> >> - Additionally python and ruby
> >>
> >> Let's vote first to get an idea of the consensus and then we can create
> >> threads on release manager, dates, code freezes etc.
> >>
> >> We have quite a bit of work to consider/do prior to release including
> >> interop testing, docs etc. Happy to raise JIRAs (or assist the release
> >> manager) for an M2 set of tasks if we proceed.
> >>
> >> *Votes please :*
> >>
> >> *[ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> >> [ ] Python and Ruby clients
> >>
> >> *And here is my +1 for all both.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Marnie
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message