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 16:57:37 GMT
Hi Carl,

My pref is strongly for c) at this point. After all, the 0-10 client doesn't
interop with the Java Broker - so it can't be the only option we point to.

Regards,
Marnie

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
>> 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 did some README clean up, which brought the question up for me.
>
> My concern is that it is confusing.  The issue is the RELEASE_NOTE.txt file
> in the top level talks about M2.
>
> options:
>
> a.) I could create a subdir for 0-8 and have top level REAME point to
> readme's in each subdir. But NOT move the
> 0-8 client into the subdir till after the release.
>
> b.) we can move 0-8 into a sub dir
>
> c.) we can do a bit more of what I have started -- add comments into the
> top level files to point to client010 files and
> strip out the out of date info around M2.
>
> any preferences?
>
> it can't go out with files that read like it is a M2 release.
> Carl.
>

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