qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Ross <justin.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 0.30 release update - alpha is available
Date Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:25:17 GMT
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:
>
> > 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? :)


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.

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