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 16:43:49 GMT
On 14 August 2014 17:33, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 08/14/2014 05:25 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Robbie Gemmell <
>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On 14 August 2014 15:23, Justin Ross <jross@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  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? :)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, one more of mine: I don't really care for having the java code
>> jammed in there.  (It's deranged project nesting, IMO.)  However, it does
>> reflect the source tree's current organization.  I'm definitely cool with
>> breaking it out.
>>
>
> I would much prefer it to be separate.
>
> I hadn't even realised it was there because what I always do is run the
> setup.py from the root of the archive, and that doesn't do anything with
> the ruby or java within the src directory.
>

I have always concentrated on the full source tar and the individual java
component binaries until this discussion, so I probably wouldnt have
noticed either for the beta if Justin hadnt pointed it out.


> I would leave the ruby out entirely. Does it even get used by
> anyone/anything at present?
>
>
I'm not sure, but it certainly doesn't seem to get mentioned much. I expect
it would struggle greatly for votes if archived on its own, which seems
like a reason to leave it out.

Robbie

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