qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 0.30 release update - alpha is available
Date Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:11:22 GMT
On 14 August 2014 15:23, Justin Ross <jross@apache.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 08/08/2014 03:55 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 August 2014 11:33, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We would need to add a specific java source bundle to that list. Would
> >>> there be one bundle or would e.g. the 1.0 JMS client be in its own
> source
> >>> bundle?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  I think for this release there should only be one, its all built as
> one
> >> big
> >> thing. We can look to split things up further at the build level if we
> >> wish
> >> later, and at that point start creating more source artifacts.
> >>
> >
> > Sounds good.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >  The Java QMF2 tools and GUI Fraser made will need an archive. They
> >> currently live under tools, but are not included in the archive with the
> >> other QMF tools.
> >>
> >
> > I'd love to have that included if possible and I would commit to testing
> > and voting on it if we are in a position to have a release artefact in
> time
> > for 0.30.
> >
>
> With 0.30 beta, we have the -bin packages from the maven output.  The
> qpid-tools source archive does also include the java source of Fraser's
> tools.
>

I'm unsure whether the existing qpid-tools source archive should now
include the Java stuff or not. I presume you just archived the whole tools
directory now and so the Ruby bits are also in there too? (I havent looked
yet, but I plan to go through and test the beta in the morning)

On the one hand they are all tools and this gives us less archives to
handle than adding a 'java qmf tools' archive, but on the other it means
adding more bits into the long standing archive which has only had the
python tools in it, partly going against the idea of people getting only
what they want (or might be used to getting). The Java bits also aren't
normally that likely to be consumed using their source, whereas the Python
and Ruby bits would be.

Anyone else have more definite thoughts on this? :)


> Based on Gordon's suggestion, here's what I think we would have (with
> versions adjusted):
>
>   Source archives, each to be voted independently:
>
>     qpid-cpp-0.30-beta.tar.gz
>     qpid-java-0.30-beta.tar.gz
>     qpid-python-0.30-beta.tar.gz
>     qpid-qmf-0.30-beta.tar.gz
>     qpid-tests-0.30-beta.tar.gz
>     qpid-tools-0.30-beta.tar.gz
>
>   Java binaries:
>
>     qpid-java-amqp-1-0-client-jms-0.30-beta-bin.tar.gz
>     qpid-java-broker-0.30-beta-bin.tar.gz
>     qpid-java-client-0.30-beta-bin.tar.gz
>     qpid-broker-plugins-management-qmf2-0.30-beta-bin.tar.gz
>     qpid-qmf2-tools-0.30-beta-bin.tar.gz
>
>   To be removed:
>
>     qpid-0.30-beta.tar.gz
>     qpid-wcf-0.30-beta.zip
>
> Justin
>

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