You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> on 2012/01/29 15:34:39 UTC
Should we recut the Apollo 1.0 RC?
After the Apollo 1.0 RC has been cut the following issues have been
reported against it:
* APLO-136 - Broker complains when a dot is used in a dsub name
* APLO-138 - examples: java readme instructions are incorrect
* APLO-137 - usability: apollo script should echo usage when called with no
arguments
While I don't think any of the above issues are major enough to block a
release, since this is the first 1.0 release, I think perhaps we should
recut the release candidate to bring in the fixes for APLO-137 and APLO-138
since those affect the initial user experience.
What do you guys think?
--
**
*Hiram Chirino*
*Software Fellow | FuseSource Corp.*
*chirino@fusesource.com | fusesource.com*
*skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
*
*blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
*
*
Re: Should we recut the Apollo 1.0 RC?
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
agree
On 29 January 2012 15:10, Daniele Teti <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi I'm new to the list and I've not write a single line of code for Apollo
> or AMQ (but I wrote a widely used STOMP client usable from Embarcadero
> Delphi and FreePascal).
>
> I dont know if I can vote. However, IMHO +1 for me.
>
> best regards
>
> 2012/1/29 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
>> wrote:
>> > After the Apollo 1.0 RC has been cut the following issues have been
>> > reported against it:
>> >
>> > * APLO-136 - Broker complains when a dot is used in a dsub name
>> > * APLO-138 - examples: java readme instructions are incorrect
>> > * APLO-137 - usability: apollo script should echo usage when called with
>> no
>> > arguments
>> >
>> > While I don't think any of the above issues are major enough to block a
>> > release, since this is the first 1.0 release, I think perhaps we should
>> > recut the release candidate to bring in the fixes for APLO-137 and
>> APLO-138
>> > since those affect the initial user experience.
>> >
>> > What do you guys think?
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > **
>> >
>> > *Hiram Chirino*
>> >
>> > *Software Fellow | FuseSource Corp.*
>> >
>> > *chirino@fusesource.com | fusesource.com*
>> >
>> > *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<
>> http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
>> > *
>> >
>> > *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
>> >
>> > *
>> > *
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> -----------------
>> FuseSource
>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> Daniele Teti
> R&D Director & Educational @ bitTime Software
> http://www.danieleteti.it
--
http://fusesource.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Re: Should we recut the Apollo 1.0 RC?
Posted by Daniele Teti <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi I'm new to the list and I've not write a single line of code for Apollo
or AMQ (but I wrote a widely used STOMP client usable from Embarcadero
Delphi and FreePascal).
I dont know if I can vote. However, IMHO +1 for me.
best regards
2012/1/29 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>
> +1
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
> wrote:
> > After the Apollo 1.0 RC has been cut the following issues have been
> > reported against it:
> >
> > * APLO-136 - Broker complains when a dot is used in a dsub name
> > * APLO-138 - examples: java readme instructions are incorrect
> > * APLO-137 - usability: apollo script should echo usage when called with
> no
> > arguments
> >
> > While I don't think any of the above issues are major enough to block a
> > release, since this is the first 1.0 release, I think perhaps we should
> > recut the release candidate to bring in the fixes for APLO-137 and
> APLO-138
> > since those affect the initial user experience.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > --
> >
> > **
> >
> > *Hiram Chirino*
> >
> > *Software Fellow | FuseSource Corp.*
> >
> > *chirino@fusesource.com | fusesource.com*
> >
> > *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<
> http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
> > *
> >
> > *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
> >
> > *
> > *
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> FuseSource
> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Daniele Teti
R&D Director & Educational @ bitTime Software
http://www.danieleteti.it
Re: Should we recut the Apollo 1.0 RC?
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> After the Apollo 1.0 RC has been cut the following issues have been
> reported against it:
>
> * APLO-136 - Broker complains when a dot is used in a dsub name
> * APLO-138 - examples: java readme instructions are incorrect
> * APLO-137 - usability: apollo script should echo usage when called with no
> arguments
>
> While I don't think any of the above issues are major enough to block a
> release, since this is the first 1.0 release, I think perhaps we should
> recut the release candidate to bring in the fixes for APLO-137 and APLO-138
> since those affect the initial user experience.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> --
>
> **
>
> *Hiram Chirino*
>
> *Software Fellow | FuseSource Corp.*
>
> *chirino@fusesource.com | fusesource.com*
>
> *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
> *
>
> *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
>
> *
> *
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Re: Should we recut the Apollo 1.0 RC?
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
I know none of them are really that big but would be good to have a
great initial user experience so +1 to re-cut 1.0
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 09:34 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> After the Apollo 1.0 RC has been cut the following issues have been
> reported against it:
>
> * APLO-136 - Broker complains when a dot is used in a dsub name
> * APLO-138 - examples: java readme instructions are incorrect
> * APLO-137 - usability: apollo script should echo usage when called with no
> arguments
>
> While I don't think any of the above issues are major enough to block a
> release, since this is the first 1.0 release, I think perhaps we should
> recut the release candidate to bring in the fixes for APLO-137 and APLO-138
> since those affect the initial user experience.
>
> What do you guys think?
>