qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marnie McCormack" <marnie.mccorm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: M4 Timelines
Date Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:56:27 GMT
> I don't know if you're referring to some comments I made on IM, but my
> concerns are not with the 0-10 .net code per se. In fact 0-10 .net code is a
> direct translation of the 0-10 Java code, both of which have received more
> review in general than the 0-8 code which predates our review process.
> My concern is with the general approach to the .net client. Both the 0-8
> .net client and the 0-10 .net client are simply translated snapshots of the
> Java codebase at a particular point in time. I don't believe this approach
> is maintainable. The 0-8 .net client is years behind the Java 0-8 client,
> and it shows in terms of bugs and features that were fixed/added long ago
> for Java, but never made it to .net. Similarly the 0-10 .net client is
> already behind the Java 0-10 code (both in bugs and features) despite being
> only a month or so old.
> As you say though this is separate from the release discussion.

Yes, my comments weren't really directed at the IM discussions. Just that we
need to discuss the .Net outside the scope of the M4 release.


>  Maven can be useful for generating the
>> IDEA/Eclipse project files so maybe we could just document the build
>> instructions for trunk ? I'm happy to do that.
> I don't think the ability to generate IDEA/Eclipse project files is worth
> the confusion of keeping around the pom files. Isn't there some way it could
> be done without having broken pom files sitting around?

I'm not sure it's so confusing really - they are really handy if you have to
blat and redo your project. maybe we could go back to having a template
.ipr/.iml files etc. We've had maven & ant a long time :-)

>  I am still checking licensing, but that is the punch list I have found so
>>> far on the last spin.
>>> Volunteers welcome to help clean up.
>>> Carl.
>>> I also sent some feedback on the alpha & beta. Be good to get Rafi's view
>> of
>> what he thinks should be done and we can pitch in.
> I think it's too late to be moving around directories at this stage. IMHO
> we should focus on testing, getting the READMEs up to date, and getting JIRA
> cleaned up. It's always been the case that each sub-project in qpid has its
> own private way of doing things, and our releases are a bit inconsistent as
> a result. I don't think we're going to solve this issue for M4, but if we
> make it a focus for the next devel cycle, there's a lot we could do to
> improve things for M5. I think if we were to do this it would be reasonable
> to drop the Milestone moniker from the release at that point.

I'd be happy for this to go as is now, and agree about the moving around.
Let's discuss/change the component structures for M5 as suggested.

> --Rafael

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