You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org> on 2008/04/09 15:30:20 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Hello all,
I've gathered the feedback from RC2 and made a couple of changes:
* fixed the maven repo and added source jars
* changed the release notes
* removed the seperate source distributions, there are now binaries
for java and .Net and one source distribution (which corresponds
exactly to the tag)
Built from http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/qpid/tags/M2.1/RC3/
and available at http://people.apache.org/~aidan/qpid-M2.1-RC3/
The Vote is open for 72h.
[ ] +1
[ ] +0
[ ] -1
- Aidan
--
aim/y!:aidans42 g:aidan.skinner@gmail.com
http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/
"We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to
each other."
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 16:43 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote:
> > Will people be happy if I just include the specs/ and <lang>/
> > directories as is
>
> That (I believe) is what we had for M2 and I would be very happy with
> it. I don't think we should at this stage expect any new form of
> packaging (though that is probably a good topic to get going for the
> next release).
Agreed, I mentioned gem etc. as a "wouldn't it be nice", not an
immediate requirement.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote:
>
> > Right, that's all up and signed, I didn't bother retagging anything
> > since it's just additional tarring.
> >
>
> Looks good to me; python tests pass against both brokers (0-8 & 0-9.no-wip
> for java, 0-9.no-wip for c++), ruby tests also apart from the long running
> issue with test_close_channel, c++ client test and topic test pass alos pass
> against both brokers.
Awesome, thanks for checking :)
- Aidan
--
aim/y!:aidans42 g:aidan.skinner@gmail.com
http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/
"We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to
each other."
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> Right, that's all up and signed, I didn't bother retagging anything
> since it's just additional tarring.
Looks good to me; python tests pass against both brokers (0-8 &
0-9.no-wip for java, 0-9.no-wip for c++), ruby tests also apart from the
long running issue with test_close_channel, c++ client test and topic
test pass alos pass against both brokers.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote:
> > Cool, I'll upload that stuff later today and let the list know. :)
> >
>
> Thanks!
Right, that's all up and signed, I didn't bother retagging anything
since it's just additional tarring.
- Aidan
--
aim/y!:aidans42 g:aidan.skinner@gmail.com
http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/
"We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to
each other."
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Aidan Skinner wrote:
>>
>>> Will people be happy if I just include the specs/ and <lang>/
>>> directories as is
>>>
>> That (I believe) is what we had for M2 and I would be very happy with it. I
>> don't think we should at this stage expect any new form of packaging (though
>> that is probably a good topic to get going for the next release).
>
> Cool, I'll upload that stuff later today and let the list know. :)
Thanks!
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote:
>
> > Will people be happy if I just include the specs/ and <lang>/
> > directories as is
> >
>
> That (I believe) is what we had for M2 and I would be very happy with it. I
> don't think we should at this stage expect any new form of packaging (though
> that is probably a good topic to get going for the next release).
Cool, I'll upload that stuff later today and let the list know. :)
- Aidan
--
aim/y!:aidans42 g:aidan.skinner@gmail.com
http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/
"We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to
each other."
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> Will people be happy if I just include the specs/ and <lang>/
> directories as is
That (I believe) is what we had for M2 and I would be very happy with
it. I don't think we should at this stage expect any new form of
packaging (though that is probably a good topic to get going for the
next release).
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
> It's not about source vs. binaries, it's about buildable vs.
> installable. It is not trivial for someone other than a qpid developer
> to identify exactly the set of files needed for a working python or ruby
> client installation.
It's not trivial even for a qpid developer it turns out, there's a
certain lack of documentation for some of them.
> It's a lot more friendly to download qpid-ruby.tar which contains
> exactly the files required. Even better if you can download a package in
> the languages native install format (.gem for ruby, python has something
> similar I think.)
I have no idea how to create a gem, python ships with a setup.py which
does the build/installation for you but I'm not aware of a gem-like
thing for it (although I only have a vauge idea about gem, seems
similar to CPAN?)
Will people be happy if I just include the specs/ and <lang>/
directories as is, or would some sort of processing to build the
framing etc be preferable? (if so, I'd need to cut another RC entirely
since it wouldn't be repeatable otherwise)
- Aidan
--
aim/y!:aidans42 g:aidan.skinner@gmail.com
http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/
"We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to
each other."
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:06 +0100, Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Aidan Skinner wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > There are no distributions of the other languages as we had in M2 for
> > > > example. Is that intentional?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, they were only ever source distributions and it seemed a bit
> > > silly (and error prone as it was an entirely manual process) to
> > > distribute seperate source packages for each one.
> >
> > That makes no sense, it hurts adoption. Should be not create binaries?
>
> We've (AFAIK) only ever shipped binaries for Java and .Net (as they
> are platform independent), everything else has been a source release.
> The change from previous versions is that I've not created source
> archives with just the cpp/python/ruby in them, just one big source
> archive with everything.
>
> If people strongly object I can upload them later, but I think this is
> a saner way to go.
>
> - Aidan'
It's not about source vs. binaries, it's about buildable vs.
installable. It is not trivial for someone other than a qpid developer
to identify exactly the set of files needed for a working python or ruby
client installation.
It's a lot more friendly to download qpid-ruby.tar which contains
exactly the files required. Even better if you can download a package in
the languages native install format (.gem for ruby, python has something
similar I think.)
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are no distributions of the other languages as we had in M2 for
> > > example. Is that intentional?
> >
> >
> > Yeah, they were only ever source distributions and it seemed a bit
> > silly (and error prone as it was an entirely manual process) to
> > distribute seperate source packages for each one.
>
> That makes no sense, it hurts adoption. Should be not create binaries?
We've (AFAIK) only ever shipped binaries for Java and .Net (as they
are platform independent), everything else has been a source release.
The change from previous versions is that I've not created source
archives with just the cpp/python/ruby in them, just one big source
archive with everything.
If people strongly object I can upload them later, but I think this is
a saner way to go.
- Aidan
--
aim/y!:aidans42 g:aidan.skinner@gmail.com
http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/
"We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to
each other."
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>> There are no distributions of the other languages as we had in M2 for
>> example. Is that intentional?
>>
>
> Yeah, they were only ever source distributions and it seemed a bit
> silly (and error prone as it was an entirely manual process) to
> distribute seperate source packages for each one.
>
> - Aidan
>
That makes no sense, it hurts adoption. Should be not create binaries?
Carl.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote:
>
> > if the C++ team want a dist'd tar I'm happy to oblige.
> >
>
> I would much prefer that, certainly. Thanks for your effort if you are
> still happy to oblige me on this!
Yeah, that's no hassle (although it will be a couple of hours before I
can get to a machine with my private key on it to sign it)
- Aidan
--
aim/y!:aidans42 g:aidan.skinner@gmail.com
http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/
"We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to
each other."
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> if the C++ team want a dist'd tar I'm happy to oblige.
I would much prefer that, certainly. Thanks for your effort if you are
still happy to oblige me on this!
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote:
>
> > Yeah, they were only ever source distributions and it seemed a bit
> > silly (and error prone as it was an entirely manual process) to
> > distribute seperate source packages for each one.
> >
>
> For c++ at least there is a big difference, the source distribution created
> by the build just requires configure to be run. Otherwise the full and up to
> date set of autoconf/automake tools are needed.
I'm not sure I see that as a big deal, anybody who's likely to being
doing this would likely have an up to date set of autotools anyway and
./bootstrap --stuff is just as easy to type (although less familiar)
as ./configure. It's not really my area though, and if the C++ team
want a dist'd tar I'm happy to oblige.
> For python and ruby having a small and focused download also seems better
> (though I agree its not significantly different from whats in the svn).
It's the testing burden more than anything else, at least one language
in the previous RC required more than I thought it did to build
sucesfully.
- Aidan
--
aim/y!:aidans42 g:aidan.skinner@gmail.com
http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/
"We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to
each other."
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> There are no distributions of the other languages as we had in M2 for
>> example. Is that intentional?
>
> Yeah, they were only ever source distributions and it seemed a bit
> silly (and error prone as it was an entirely manual process) to
> distribute seperate source packages for each one.
For c++ at least there is a big difference, the source distribution
created by the build just requires configure to be run. Otherwise the
full and up to date set of autoconf/automake tools are needed.
For python and ruby having a small and focused download also seems
better (though I agree its not significantly different from whats in the
svn).
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> There are no distributions of the other languages as we had in M2 for
> example. Is that intentional?
Yeah, they were only ever source distributions and it seemed a bit
silly (and error prone as it was an entirely manual process) to
distribute seperate source packages for each one.
- Aidan
--
aim/y!:aidans42 g:aidan.skinner@gmail.com
http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/
"We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to
each other."
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> I've gathered the feedback from RC2 and made a couple of changes:
>
> * fixed the maven repo and added source jars
> * changed the release notes
> * removed the seperate source distributions, there are now binaries
> for java and .Net and one source distribution (which corresponds
> exactly to the tag)
>
> Built from http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/qpid/tags/M2.1/RC3/
> and available at http://people.apache.org/~aidan/qpid-M2.1-RC3/
There are no distributions of the other languages as we had in M2 for
example. Is that intentional?