You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> on 2007/03/06 12:41:25 UTC
[VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Hi All,
I there are now some compelling motivations for releasing an M2.
I'd like to propose an M2, to include:
- Java Broker
- Java Client
- C++ Broker
- C++ Client
- .NET Client
I can speak with more authority on some areas than others, but here's my
quick summary of major changes since M1:
- the Java Client/Broker pass the SUN TCK making our offering in this area
much more attractive
- the persistence rework on the Java broker is complete and significantly
advances the functionality
- the C++ broker is ready for some real use and should get out there for
early adopters
- the C++ client interop has been worked upon/used quite a bit in dev
- the .NET client has been substantially extended and interop improved
- and a lot of JIRAs resolved on all front, bugs and improvements
We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board, and
it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
I think we also considered releasing the python and ruby for M1, but there
were gaps in the docs etc. I'm happy that we should include these in M2,
assuming someone is willing to contribute the required docs etc (and they
interop).
I'd like to structure our initial vote as follows:
- M2 Release including Java, C++ and .NET
- Additionally python and ruby
Let's vote first to get an idea of the consensus and then we can create
threads on release manager, dates, code freezes etc.
We have quite a bit of work to consider/do prior to release including
interop testing, docs etc. Happy to raise JIRAs (or assist the release
manager) for an M2 set of tasks if we proceed.
*Votes please :*
*[ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
[ ] Python and Ruby clients
*And here is my +1 for all both.
Regards,
Marnie
Re: Merging 0-9 and (Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release)
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 16:33 +0000, Rupert Smith wrote:
> Can I request as few branches as possible? Ideally, just the one for
> the entirety of M2. I'm already starting to lose track of what is in
> what branch.
A reasonable request :)
I'll hold off making a branch for C++, I'll merely note the last
revision before merge so that we can branch from it if/when we need to.
Cheers,
Alan.
Re: Merging 0-9 and (Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release)
Posted by Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>.
Can I request as few branches as possible? Ideally, just the one for
the entirety of M2. I'm already starting to lose track of what is in
what branch.
On 3/6/07, Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
> We'll need an M2 release branches to isolate M2 from turbulence caused
> by the 0-9 merge. We can defer branching for some components. Here's
> what I propose for the parts I'm merging:
>
> spec: should be able to merge to trunk as-is, 0-9 adds new XML files
> doesn't modify existing ones.
>
> python: on branch speaks both 0-8 and 0-9, I'll verify it on trunk &
> branch before merging and leave the default as 0-8 until we move both
> brokers to 0-9 on trunk.
>
> cpp: I'll create an M2 branch for cpp now and then merge 0-9. That's our
> fallback position for M2. There are some major reorgs planned on the C++
> trunk, we will probably be able to have a bilingual client and merge the
> trunk updates back to M2. We haven't been planning on a bilingual broker
> but if things come together right it might be a possibility - if not we
> can release todays broker for M2.
>
> For interop tests we'll have an interim period of testing 0-8 C++ built
> from M2 branch with everything else built from trunk, but that will only
> last till the rest of the trunk is up to 0-9 at which point it'll be
> straightforward 0-8 on M2 and 0-9 on trunk.
>
> Shout quick with any objections/suggestions.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 11:41 +0000, Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I there are now some compelling motivations for releasing an M2.
> >
> > I'd like to propose an M2, to include:
> >
> > - Java Broker
> > - Java Client
> > - C++ Broker
> > - C++ Client
> > - .NET Client
> >
> > I can speak with more authority on some areas than others, but here's my
> > quick summary of major changes since M1:
> >
> > - the Java Client/Broker pass the SUN TCK making our offering in this area
> > much more attractive
> > - the persistence rework on the Java broker is complete and significantly
> > advances the functionality
> > - the C++ broker is ready for some real use and should get out there for
> > early adopters
> > - the C++ client interop has been worked upon/used quite a bit in dev
> > - the .NET client has been substantially extended and interop improved
> > - and a lot of JIRAs resolved on all front, bugs and improvements
> >
> > We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board, and
> > it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
> >
> > I think we also considered releasing the python and ruby for M1, but there
> > were gaps in the docs etc. I'm happy that we should include these in M2,
> > assuming someone is willing to contribute the required docs etc (and they
> > interop).
> >
> > I'd like to structure our initial vote as follows:
> >
> > - M2 Release including Java, C++ and .NET
> > - Additionally python and ruby
> >
> > Let's vote first to get an idea of the consensus and then we can create
> > threads on release manager, dates, code freezes etc.
> >
> > We have quite a bit of work to consider/do prior to release including
> > interop testing, docs etc. Happy to raise JIRAs (or assist the release
> > manager) for an M2 set of tasks if we proceed.
> >
> > *Votes please :*
> >
> > *[ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > [ ] Python and Ruby clients
> >
> > *And here is my +1 for all both.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marnie
>
>
Merging 0-9 and (Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release)
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
We'll need an M2 release branches to isolate M2 from turbulence caused
by the 0-9 merge. We can defer branching for some components. Here's
what I propose for the parts I'm merging:
spec: should be able to merge to trunk as-is, 0-9 adds new XML files
doesn't modify existing ones.
python: on branch speaks both 0-8 and 0-9, I'll verify it on trunk &
branch before merging and leave the default as 0-8 until we move both
brokers to 0-9 on trunk.
cpp: I'll create an M2 branch for cpp now and then merge 0-9. That's our
fallback position for M2. There are some major reorgs planned on the C++
trunk, we will probably be able to have a bilingual client and merge the
trunk updates back to M2. We haven't been planning on a bilingual broker
but if things come together right it might be a possibility - if not we
can release todays broker for M2.
For interop tests we'll have an interim period of testing 0-8 C++ built
from M2 branch with everything else built from trunk, but that will only
last till the rest of the trunk is up to 0-9 at which point it'll be
straightforward 0-8 on M2 and 0-9 on trunk.
Shout quick with any objections/suggestions.
Cheers,
Alan.
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 11:41 +0000, Marnie McCormack wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I there are now some compelling motivations for releasing an M2.
>
> I'd like to propose an M2, to include:
>
> - Java Broker
> - Java Client
> - C++ Broker
> - C++ Client
> - .NET Client
>
> I can speak with more authority on some areas than others, but here's my
> quick summary of major changes since M1:
>
> - the Java Client/Broker pass the SUN TCK making our offering in this area
> much more attractive
> - the persistence rework on the Java broker is complete and significantly
> advances the functionality
> - the C++ broker is ready for some real use and should get out there for
> early adopters
> - the C++ client interop has been worked upon/used quite a bit in dev
> - the .NET client has been substantially extended and interop improved
> - and a lot of JIRAs resolved on all front, bugs and improvements
>
> We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board, and
> it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
>
> I think we also considered releasing the python and ruby for M1, but there
> were gaps in the docs etc. I'm happy that we should include these in M2,
> assuming someone is willing to contribute the required docs etc (and they
> interop).
>
> I'd like to structure our initial vote as follows:
>
> - M2 Release including Java, C++ and .NET
> - Additionally python and ruby
>
> Let's vote first to get an idea of the consensus and then we can create
> threads on release manager, dates, code freezes etc.
>
> We have quite a bit of work to consider/do prior to release including
> interop testing, docs etc. Happy to raise JIRAs (or assist the release
> manager) for an M2 set of tasks if we proceed.
>
> *Votes please :*
>
> *[ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> [ ] Python and Ruby clients
>
> *And here is my +1 for all both.
>
> Regards,
> Marnie
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 19:31 +0000, Robert Greig wrote:
> > [ ] Python and Ruby clients
>
> +0 since I haven't used these at all. Can anyone who has used the Ruby
> client (for anything non-trivial) post their experiences? Similarly
> for the Python client?
Python is probably the most extensively tested of our clients since C++
and Java both run the python test suite against their brokers. No idea
about ruby, I don't think its had much exercise.
Cheers,
Alan.
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Robert Greig <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 06/03/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board, and
> it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
I think this is key. Once we get into a protocol change cycle it could
be some time before we can do another release and we have done *tons*
of work since M1. If people are going to our site and picking up M1
they are missing a lot.
> [ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
+1 for all these
> [ ] Python and Ruby clients
+0 since I haven't used these at all. Can anyone who has used the Ruby
client (for anything non-trivial) post their experiences? Similarly
for the Python client?
RG
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Bhupendra Bhardwaj <bh...@gmail.com>.
[+1] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
[+1] Python
[0] Ruby clients - don't know the status
Regards,
Bhupendra Bhardwaj
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
[+1] Java, C++,
[+1] Python
[0] .NET and Ruby clients - don't know status.
Rajith
On 3/6/07, Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> [+1] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> [+1] Python
> [0] Ruby clients - don't know status.
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
[+1] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
[+1] Python
[0] Ruby clients - don't know status.
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>.
+1 From me. (interop spec will be uploaded to the wiki very very soon).
On 3/6/07, Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From me:
>
>
> > *[+1] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > [ 0] Python and Ruby clients
>
>
>
> In particular I think we *must* release an interoperable Java Broker, Java
> Client, .NET client, C++ client. It would be nice to add the C++ broker
> (I'll leave judgements on that to the C++ guys).
> +1 For Python
> 0 For Ruby - has anyone looked at this recently
>
> I think that now we have something that is JMS TCK compliant, with maven
> build system, we have a viable M2 release.
>
> I definitely think we should checkpoint this before we start on merging down
> the 0-9 stuff to trunk.
>
> -- Rob
>
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
>From me:
> *[+1] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> [ 0] Python and Ruby clients
In particular I think we *must* release an interoperable Java Broker, Java
Client, .NET client, C++ client. It would be nice to add the C++ broker
(I'll leave judgements on that to the C++ guys).
+1 For Python
0 For Ruby - has anyone looked at this recently
I think that now we have something that is JMS TCK compliant, with maven
build system, we have a viable M2 release.
I definitely think we should checkpoint this before we start on merging down
the 0-9 stuff to trunk.
-- Rob
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
One thing to add (or rather subtract) I think we should either emove from
the distribution or specifically disclaim any claims of functionality for
the Java Clustered Broker. To my knowledge no-one has been testing this for
a while, and a number of tests have simply been commented out rather than
getting them fixed. Given we are looking at potentially re-writing the
cluster logic during the coming months I do not think we should be investing
any time into the current cluster codebase.
-- Rob
On 06/03/07, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Martin Ritchie wrote:
> > Can the Authors of the Ruby/Python speak for its current state? If we
> > are to release python and ruby clients then all the clients should
> > interop.
>
> Python should be good to go once the interop issues mentioned in another
> thread are addressed. To my knowledge it's been a few months since
> anyone has done anything with Ruby, so I'm rechecking whether it still
> works now. I'll send an email when I have more info.
>
> --Rafael
>
> >
> > On 06/03/07, Das, Kapali Tejeswar <te...@iona.com> wrote:
> >> +1 from me.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Tejeswar
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:41 AM
> >> To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I there are now some compelling motivations for releasing an M2.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose an M2, to include:
> >>
> >> - Java Broker
> >> - Java Client
> >> - C++ Broker
> >> - C++ Client
> >> - .NET Client
> >>
> >> I can speak with more authority on some areas than others, but here's
> my
> >> quick summary of major changes since M1:
> >>
> >> - the Java Client/Broker pass the SUN TCK making our offering in this
> >> area
> >> much more attractive
> >> - the persistence rework on the Java broker is complete and
> >> significantly
> >> advances the functionality
> >> - the C++ broker is ready for some real use and should get out there
> for
> >> early adopters
> >> - the C++ client interop has been worked upon/used quite a bit in dev
> >> - the .NET client has been substantially extended and interop improved
> >> - and a lot of JIRAs resolved on all front, bugs and improvements
> >>
> >> We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board,
> >> and
> >> it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
> >>
> >> I think we also considered releasing the python and ruby for M1, but
> >> there
> >> were gaps in the docs etc. I'm happy that we should include these in
> M2,
> >> assuming someone is willing to contribute the required docs etc (and
> >> they
> >> interop).
> >>
> >> I'd like to structure our initial vote as follows:
> >>
> >> - M2 Release including Java, C++ and .NET
> >> - Additionally python and ruby
> >>
> >> Let's vote first to get an idea of the consensus and then we can create
> >> threads on release manager, dates, code freezes etc.
> >>
> >> We have quite a bit of work to consider/do prior to release including
> >> interop testing, docs etc. Happy to raise JIRAs (or assist the release
> >> manager) for an M2 set of tasks if we proceed.
> >>
> >> *Votes please :*
> >>
> >> *[ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> >> [ ] Python and Ruby clients
> >>
> >> *And here is my +1 for all both.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Marnie
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Alan,
I was specifically responding to the release process question, not to
contributing to Qpid in general !
In reality, having someone doing release tasks without ability to actually
do anything themselves (and perhaps lacking any real project background)
doesn't make much sense imho for M2.
If Navin would like to get involved in Qpid per se, then I'm all in favour
of that and would be delighted for him to contribute.
Regards,
Marnie
On 4/12/07, Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 13:48 +0100, Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > Hi Navin,
> >
> > Afaik you would need committer rights to be able to contribute anything
> much
> > to the M2 release I'm afraid.
> >
>
> We've had people make significant contributions without committer rights
> by sending patches to the list or attaching them to JIRAs.
>
> > On 4/11/07, Kamath, Navin <na...@iona.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rajith,
> > >
> > > IONA would like to help out in the M2 release process. But it will
> > > probably be Tej (already a committer) or myself (not yet a committer
> :)
> > > who will be doing it.
>
> Navin making patches and Tej applying them might be a good working
> arrangement.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 13:48 +0100, Marnie McCormack wrote:
> Hi Navin,
>
> Afaik you would need committer rights to be able to contribute anything much
> to the M2 release I'm afraid.
>
We've had people make significant contributions without committer rights
by sending patches to the list or attaching them to JIRAs.
> On 4/11/07, Kamath, Navin <na...@iona.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rajith,
> >
> > IONA would like to help out in the M2 release process. But it will
> > probably be Tej (already a committer) or myself (not yet a committer :)
> > who will be doing it.
Navin making patches and Tej applying them might be a good working
arrangement.
Cheers,
Alan.
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Navin,
Afaik you would need committer rights to be able to contribute anything much
to the M2 release I'm afraid.
Regards,
Marnie
On 4/11/07, Kamath, Navin <na...@iona.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rajith,
>
> IONA would like to help out in the M2 release process. But it will
> probably be Tej (already a committer) or myself (not yet a committer :)
> who will be doing it.
>
> Is there a JIRA task for this issue so that I can know what is being
> exactly for here?
>
> Regards,
> Navin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rajith Attapattu [mailto:rajith77@gmail.com]
> Sent: 11 April 2007 14:01
> To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
>
> Thanks Martin and Rupert for the comments.
> Steve V is no longer with iona or the project, so somebody needs to step
> up
> here and help.
>
> Dan Kulp can you help sorting out the maven issues ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajith
>
> On 4/11/07, Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That merge list is getting long again. I tried to merge some changes I
> > made
> > that are nearer the end of it, but got conflicts so just abandoned the
> > merge
> > for the moment. Its definitely better if the list can be worked
> through in
> > order from earlier to later changes...
> >
> > On 11/04/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > My understanding of the branching was that we created M2 so that the
> > > new AMQP features could be moved to trunk and the _relatively_
> stable
> > > 0.8 implementation could be wound up for release before we spend a
> > > good few months getting the next implementation ready.
> > >
> > > A good starting point would be with the set of of open bugs and
> > > categorising them as M2 or M3 or later.
> > >
> > > I shall certainly do that with what I have open.
> > >
> > > The work that was done before on the legal notices won't work as we
> no
> > > longer have that information in our repository. However one of the
> > > driving forces behind the move to maven IIRC was to make this sort
> of
> > > thing easier. Unfortunately I haven't heard from Steve V. in a while
> > > as he would be the man with the answer, but maven must have a plug
> in
> > > that can generate an Apache legal notice document based on the
> project
> > > dependencies.
> > >
> > > The java trunk vs M2 difference is that I'm working mainly on M2
> > > finishing off the various outstanding issues I have and
> > > "theoretically" merging them to trunk as I go. Unfortunately, I've
> not
> > > had time to do the merging which really needs done before trunk runs
> > > off with too many new changes that prevents the merge.
> > >
> > > On 10/04/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Martin,
> > > >
> > > > I can help as much as I can and I hope that some of the work that
> we
> > put
> > > in
> > > > to the last release want have to be repeated.
> > > > For example the legal notices, licenses etc.
> > > >
> > > > If there are any new dependencies that we have added please let us
> > know.
> > > I
> > > > will create a wiki page to track M2 progress.
> > > > I cut the M2 branch based on request by JPM. However I am (or the
> > > community)
> > > > is not sure what is happening where.
> > > >
> > > > What is going on in the java trunk vs the M2 branch ? are
> > > > changes/improvements in the M2 being merged back to trunk?
> > > > When is the plan for M2 release?
> > > >
> > > > So lets start there and capture the items that going in to this
> > > release.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rajith
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/10/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Rajith,
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me say thanks aswell for stepping forward but just to let
> you
> > know
> > > > > being the release manager is more than just cutting an a few
> RCs.
> > > > >
> > > > > The incubator has a guide which is not yet complete but a good
> > > starting
> > > > > read:
> > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to this though I would say that the M2 branch has to
> > much
> > > > > development on it to release just now. I would suggest that we
> need
> > to
> > > > > set a cut off point for development. Of course having marked
> what
> > > > > defects are to be included in M2. Then re-branch for RC cutting
> and
> > > > > merging any resulting defects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Martin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/04/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks !
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we need to create a list of tasks for M2, as we did
> for
> > M1.
> > > I
> > > > > > suspect there's a lot of cleaning up to be done before we can
> > create
> > > RCs
> > > > > ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We also need licenses etc all updated. A quick checlist for
> user
> > > docs on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > non-Java side is probably worthwhile (as this is their first
> > > release)
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bye for now,
> > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4/10/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey Marnie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will help as stated and I have already created a M2
> branch.
> > > > > > > I am waiting for folks to give the green light to cut the
> RC's
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 4/10/07, Marnie McCormack
> <ma...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does anyone want to volunteer to manage the M2 release ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm afraid that I cannot, for personal/biological reasons.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think M2 is pretty important for Apache Qpid in terms of
> > > progress,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > making a reasonably robust project available to
> download/use.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now easy on the stampede ...... :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hey np, I will take care of it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > take it easy,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <
> > marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all
> included
> > > > > > > technologies)
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > thanks.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have
> to
> > opt
> > > out
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily
> pregnant so
> > > > > working
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > tight schedule to get everything I need to do done
> before
> > > riding
> > > > > off
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > the sunset :-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave,
> but a
> > > little
> > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > > available !
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bfn,
> > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the
> > > release in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > > > hour.
> > > > > > > > > > > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for
> this
> > > release
> > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <
> > > marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby
> but
> > a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > concerned
> > > > > > > > > > > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons
> > other
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we
> have
> > no
> > > -1's
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > 0's
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the components in the vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also
> so
> > it
> > > > > must be
> > > > > > > > > > > included.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2
> Release
> > > vote
> > > > > > > thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they
> > look
> > > like
> > > > > > > this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that
> the
> > > > > python is
> > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit
> > > behind
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional
> effort
> > > > > (hopefully
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kevin).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate
> our
> > > > > efforts on
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > M2
> > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only includes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered
> broker
> > > code)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Python Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group
> > > consensus.
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > email
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > separately
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martin Ritchie
> > >
> >
>
RE: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by "Kamath, Navin" <na...@iona.com>.
Hi Rajith,
IONA would like to help out in the M2 release process. But it will
probably be Tej (already a committer) or myself (not yet a committer :)
who will be doing it.
Is there a JIRA task for this issue so that I can know what is being
exactly for here?
Regards,
Navin
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajith Attapattu [mailto:rajith77@gmail.com]
Sent: 11 April 2007 14:01
To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Thanks Martin and Rupert for the comments.
Steve V is no longer with iona or the project, so somebody needs to step
up
here and help.
Dan Kulp can you help sorting out the maven issues ?
Regards,
Rajith
On 4/11/07, Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> That merge list is getting long again. I tried to merge some changes I
> made
> that are nearer the end of it, but got conflicts so just abandoned the
> merge
> for the moment. Its definitely better if the list can be worked
through in
> order from earlier to later changes...
>
> On 11/04/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > My understanding of the branching was that we created M2 so that the
> > new AMQP features could be moved to trunk and the _relatively_
stable
> > 0.8 implementation could be wound up for release before we spend a
> > good few months getting the next implementation ready.
> >
> > A good starting point would be with the set of of open bugs and
> > categorising them as M2 or M3 or later.
> >
> > I shall certainly do that with what I have open.
> >
> > The work that was done before on the legal notices won't work as we
no
> > longer have that information in our repository. However one of the
> > driving forces behind the move to maven IIRC was to make this sort
of
> > thing easier. Unfortunately I haven't heard from Steve V. in a while
> > as he would be the man with the answer, but maven must have a plug
in
> > that can generate an Apache legal notice document based on the
project
> > dependencies.
> >
> > The java trunk vs M2 difference is that I'm working mainly on M2
> > finishing off the various outstanding issues I have and
> > "theoretically" merging them to trunk as I go. Unfortunately, I've
not
> > had time to do the merging which really needs done before trunk runs
> > off with too many new changes that prevents the merge.
> >
> > On 10/04/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Martin,
> > >
> > > I can help as much as I can and I hope that some of the work that
we
> put
> > in
> > > to the last release want have to be repeated.
> > > For example the legal notices, licenses etc.
> > >
> > > If there are any new dependencies that we have added please let us
> know.
> > I
> > > will create a wiki page to track M2 progress.
> > > I cut the M2 branch based on request by JPM. However I am (or the
> > community)
> > > is not sure what is happening where.
> > >
> > > What is going on in the java trunk vs the M2 branch ? are
> > > changes/improvements in the M2 being merged back to trunk?
> > > When is the plan for M2 release?
> > >
> > > So lets start there and capture the items that going in to this
> > release.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajith
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/10/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Rajith,
> > > >
> > > > Let me say thanks aswell for stepping forward but just to let
you
> know
> > > > being the release manager is more than just cutting an a few
RCs.
> > > >
> > > > The incubator has a guide which is not yet complete but a good
> > starting
> > > > read:
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> > > >
> > > > In addition to this though I would say that the M2 branch has to
> much
> > > > development on it to release just now. I would suggest that we
need
> to
> > > > set a cut off point for development. Of course having marked
what
> > > > defects are to be included in M2. Then re-branch for RC cutting
and
> > > > merging any resulting defects.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 10/04/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks !
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we need to create a list of tasks for M2, as we did
for
> M1.
> > I
> > > > > suspect there's a lot of cleaning up to be done before we can
> create
> > RCs
> > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > We also need licenses etc all updated. A quick checlist for
user
> > docs on
> > > > the
> > > > > non-Java side is probably worthwhile (as this is their first
> > release)
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Bye for now,
> > > > > Marnie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/10/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Marnie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will help as stated and I have already created a M2
branch.
> > > > > > I am waiting for folks to give the green light to cut the
RC's
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4/10/07, Marnie McCormack
<ma...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anyone want to volunteer to manage the M2 release ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm afraid that I cannot, for personal/biological reasons.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think M2 is pretty important for Apache Qpid in terms of
> > progress,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > making a reasonably robust project available to
download/use.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now easy on the stampede ...... :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey np, I will take care of it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > take it easy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <
> marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all
included
> > > > > > technologies)
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > thanks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have
to
> opt
> > out
> > > > as
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily
pregnant so
> > > > working
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > tight schedule to get everything I need to do done
before
> > riding
> > > > off
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > the sunset :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave,
but a
> > little
> > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > available !
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bfn,
> > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the
> > release in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > > hour.
> > > > > > > > > > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for
this
> > release
> > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <
> > marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby
but
> a
> > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > concerned
> > > > > > > > > > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons
> other
> > > > than
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we
have
> no
> > -1's
> > > > or
> > > > > > > 0's
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the components in the vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also
so
> it
> > > > must be
> > > > > > > > > > included.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carl.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2
Release
> > vote
> > > > > > thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they
> look
> > like
> > > > > > this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that
the
> > > > python is
> > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit
> > behind
> > > > this
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional
effort
> > > > (hopefully
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kevin).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate
our
> > > > efforts on
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > M2
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > only includes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered
broker
> > code)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Java Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Python Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group
> > consensus.
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > > email
> > > > > > > > > > > > > separately
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martin Ritchie
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Martin and Rupert for the comments.
Steve V is no longer with iona or the project, so somebody needs to step up
here and help.
Dan Kulp can you help sorting out the maven issues ?
Regards,
Rajith
On 4/11/07, Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> That merge list is getting long again. I tried to merge some changes I
> made
> that are nearer the end of it, but got conflicts so just abandoned the
> merge
> for the moment. Its definitely better if the list can be worked through in
> order from earlier to later changes...
>
> On 11/04/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > My understanding of the branching was that we created M2 so that the
> > new AMQP features could be moved to trunk and the _relatively_ stable
> > 0.8 implementation could be wound up for release before we spend a
> > good few months getting the next implementation ready.
> >
> > A good starting point would be with the set of of open bugs and
> > categorising them as M2 or M3 or later.
> >
> > I shall certainly do that with what I have open.
> >
> > The work that was done before on the legal notices won't work as we no
> > longer have that information in our repository. However one of the
> > driving forces behind the move to maven IIRC was to make this sort of
> > thing easier. Unfortunately I haven't heard from Steve V. in a while
> > as he would be the man with the answer, but maven must have a plug in
> > that can generate an Apache legal notice document based on the project
> > dependencies.
> >
> > The java trunk vs M2 difference is that I'm working mainly on M2
> > finishing off the various outstanding issues I have and
> > "theoretically" merging them to trunk as I go. Unfortunately, I've not
> > had time to do the merging which really needs done before trunk runs
> > off with too many new changes that prevents the merge.
> >
> > On 10/04/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Martin,
> > >
> > > I can help as much as I can and I hope that some of the work that we
> put
> > in
> > > to the last release want have to be repeated.
> > > For example the legal notices, licenses etc.
> > >
> > > If there are any new dependencies that we have added please let us
> know.
> > I
> > > will create a wiki page to track M2 progress.
> > > I cut the M2 branch based on request by JPM. However I am (or the
> > community)
> > > is not sure what is happening where.
> > >
> > > What is going on in the java trunk vs the M2 branch ? are
> > > changes/improvements in the M2 being merged back to trunk?
> > > When is the plan for M2 release?
> > >
> > > So lets start there and capture the items that going in to this
> > release.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajith
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/10/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Rajith,
> > > >
> > > > Let me say thanks aswell for stepping forward but just to let you
> know
> > > > being the release manager is more than just cutting an a few RCs.
> > > >
> > > > The incubator has a guide which is not yet complete but a good
> > starting
> > > > read:
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> > > >
> > > > In addition to this though I would say that the M2 branch has to
> much
> > > > development on it to release just now. I would suggest that we need
> to
> > > > set a cut off point for development. Of course having marked what
> > > > defects are to be included in M2. Then re-branch for RC cutting and
> > > > merging any resulting defects.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 10/04/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks !
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we need to create a list of tasks for M2, as we did for
> M1.
> > I
> > > > > suspect there's a lot of cleaning up to be done before we can
> create
> > RCs
> > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > We also need licenses etc all updated. A quick checlist for user
> > docs on
> > > > the
> > > > > non-Java side is probably worthwhile (as this is their first
> > release)
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Bye for now,
> > > > > Marnie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/10/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Marnie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will help as stated and I have already created a M2 branch.
> > > > > > I am waiting for folks to give the green light to cut the RC's
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4/10/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anyone want to volunteer to manage the M2 release ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm afraid that I cannot, for personal/biological reasons.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think M2 is pretty important for Apache Qpid in terms of
> > progress,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > making a reasonably robust project available to download/use.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now easy on the stampede ...... :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey np, I will take care of it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > take it easy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <
> marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all included
> > > > > > technologies)
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > thanks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have to
> opt
> > out
> > > > as
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily pregnant so
> > > > working
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > tight schedule to get everything I need to do done before
> > riding
> > > > off
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > the sunset :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave, but a
> > little
> > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > available !
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bfn,
> > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the
> > release in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > > hour.
> > > > > > > > > > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this
> > release
> > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <
> > marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but
> a
> > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > concerned
> > > > > > > > > > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons
> other
> > > > than
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have
> no
> > -1's
> > > > or
> > > > > > > 0's
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the components in the vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so
> it
> > > > must be
> > > > > > > > > > included.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carl.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release
> > vote
> > > > > > thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they
> look
> > like
> > > > > > this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the
> > > > python is
> > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit
> > behind
> > > > this
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort
> > > > (hopefully
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kevin).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our
> > > > efforts on
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > M2
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > only includes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker
> > code)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Java Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Python Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group
> > consensus.
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > > email
> > > > > > > > > > > > > separately
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martin Ritchie
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>.
That merge list is getting long again. I tried to merge some changes I made
that are nearer the end of it, but got conflicts so just abandoned the merge
for the moment. Its definitely better if the list can be worked through in
order from earlier to later changes...
On 11/04/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> My understanding of the branching was that we created M2 so that the
> new AMQP features could be moved to trunk and the _relatively_ stable
> 0.8 implementation could be wound up for release before we spend a
> good few months getting the next implementation ready.
>
> A good starting point would be with the set of of open bugs and
> categorising them as M2 or M3 or later.
>
> I shall certainly do that with what I have open.
>
> The work that was done before on the legal notices won't work as we no
> longer have that information in our repository. However one of the
> driving forces behind the move to maven IIRC was to make this sort of
> thing easier. Unfortunately I haven't heard from Steve V. in a while
> as he would be the man with the answer, but maven must have a plug in
> that can generate an Apache legal notice document based on the project
> dependencies.
>
> The java trunk vs M2 difference is that I'm working mainly on M2
> finishing off the various outstanding issues I have and
> "theoretically" merging them to trunk as I go. Unfortunately, I've not
> had time to do the merging which really needs done before trunk runs
> off with too many new changes that prevents the merge.
>
> On 10/04/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Martin,
> >
> > I can help as much as I can and I hope that some of the work that we put
> in
> > to the last release want have to be repeated.
> > For example the legal notices, licenses etc.
> >
> > If there are any new dependencies that we have added please let us know.
> I
> > will create a wiki page to track M2 progress.
> > I cut the M2 branch based on request by JPM. However I am (or the
> community)
> > is not sure what is happening where.
> >
> > What is going on in the java trunk vs the M2 branch ? are
> > changes/improvements in the M2 being merged back to trunk?
> > When is the plan for M2 release?
> >
> > So lets start there and capture the items that going in to this
> release.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rajith
> >
> >
> > On 4/10/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Rajith,
> > >
> > > Let me say thanks aswell for stepping forward but just to let you know
> > > being the release manager is more than just cutting an a few RCs.
> > >
> > > The incubator has a guide which is not yet complete but a good
> starting
> > > read:
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> > >
> > > In addition to this though I would say that the M2 branch has to much
> > > development on it to release just now. I would suggest that we need to
> > > set a cut off point for development. Of course having marked what
> > > defects are to be included in M2. Then re-branch for RC cutting and
> > > merging any resulting defects.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On 10/04/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks !
> > > >
> > > > I think we need to create a list of tasks for M2, as we did for M1.
> I
> > > > suspect there's a lot of cleaning up to be done before we can create
> RCs
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > We also need licenses etc all updated. A quick checlist for user
> docs on
> > > the
> > > > non-Java side is probably worthwhile (as this is their first
> release)
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Bye for now,
> > > > Marnie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/10/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Marnie,
> > > > >
> > > > > I will help as stated and I have already created a M2 branch.
> > > > > I am waiting for folks to give the green light to cut the RC's
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajith
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/10/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone want to volunteer to manage the M2 release ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm afraid that I cannot, for personal/biological reasons.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think M2 is pretty important for Apache Qpid in terms of
> progress,
> > > and
> > > > > > making a reasonably robust project available to download/use.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now easy on the stampede ...... :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey np, I will take care of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > take it easy,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all included
> > > > > technologies)
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > thanks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have to opt
> out
> > > as
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily pregnant so
> > > working
> > > > > to
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > tight schedule to get everything I need to do done before
> riding
> > > off
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > the sunset :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave, but a
> little
> > > > > less
> > > > > > > > available !
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bfn,
> > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the
> release in
> > > the
> > > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > hour.
> > > > > > > > > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this
> release
> > > ?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <
> marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a
> > > little
> > > > > > > > > concerned
> > > > > > > > > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other
> > > than
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no
> -1's
> > > or
> > > > > > 0's
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the components in the vote
> > > > > > > > > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it
> > > must be
> > > > > > > > > included.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Carl.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release
> vote
> > > > > thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look
> like
> > > > > this:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > > > > > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the
> > > python is
> > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit
> behind
> > > this
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort
> > > (hopefully
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > Kevin).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our
> > > efforts on
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > M2
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > only includes:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker
> code)
> > > > > > > > > > > > Java Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > > > > > > > > Python Client
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group
> consensus.
> > > I'll
> > > > > > email
> > > > > > > > > > > > separately
> > > > > > > > > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Martin Ritchie
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
My understanding of the branching was that we created M2 so that the
new AMQP features could be moved to trunk and the _relatively_ stable
0.8 implementation could be wound up for release before we spend a
good few months getting the next implementation ready.
A good starting point would be with the set of of open bugs and
categorising them as M2 or M3 or later.
I shall certainly do that with what I have open.
The work that was done before on the legal notices won't work as we no
longer have that information in our repository. However one of the
driving forces behind the move to maven IIRC was to make this sort of
thing easier. Unfortunately I haven't heard from Steve V. in a while
as he would be the man with the answer, but maven must have a plug in
that can generate an Apache legal notice document based on the project
dependencies.
The java trunk vs M2 difference is that I'm working mainly on M2
finishing off the various outstanding issues I have and
"theoretically" merging them to trunk as I go. Unfortunately, I've not
had time to do the merging which really needs done before trunk runs
off with too many new changes that prevents the merge.
On 10/04/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> I can help as much as I can and I hope that some of the work that we put in
> to the last release want have to be repeated.
> For example the legal notices, licenses etc.
>
> If there are any new dependencies that we have added please let us know. I
> will create a wiki page to track M2 progress.
> I cut the M2 branch based on request by JPM. However I am (or the community)
> is not sure what is happening where.
>
> What is going on in the java trunk vs the M2 branch ? are
> changes/improvements in the M2 being merged back to trunk?
> When is the plan for M2 release?
>
> So lets start there and capture the items that going in to this release.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajith
>
>
> On 4/10/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Rajith,
> >
> > Let me say thanks aswell for stepping forward but just to let you know
> > being the release manager is more than just cutting an a few RCs.
> >
> > The incubator has a guide which is not yet complete but a good starting
> > read:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> >
> > In addition to this though I would say that the M2 branch has to much
> > development on it to release just now. I would suggest that we need to
> > set a cut off point for development. Of course having marked what
> > defects are to be included in M2. Then re-branch for RC cutting and
> > merging any resulting defects.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 10/04/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Rajith,
> > >
> > > Thanks !
> > >
> > > I think we need to create a list of tasks for M2, as we did for M1. I
> > > suspect there's a lot of cleaning up to be done before we can create RCs
> > ?
> > >
> > > We also need licenses etc all updated. A quick checlist for user docs on
> > the
> > > non-Java side is probably worthwhile (as this is their first release)
> > ...
> > >
> > > Bye for now,
> > > Marnie
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/10/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey Marnie,
> > > >
> > > > I will help as stated and I have already created a M2 branch.
> > > > I am waiting for folks to give the green light to cut the RC's
> > > >
> > > > Rajith
> > > >
> > > > On 4/10/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone want to volunteer to manage the M2 release ?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm afraid that I cannot, for personal/biological reasons.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think M2 is pretty important for Apache Qpid in terms of progress,
> > and
> > > > > making a reasonably robust project available to download/use.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now easy on the stampede ...... :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > Marnie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey np, I will take care of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > take it easy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all included
> > > > technologies)
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have to opt out
> > as
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily pregnant so
> > working
> > > > to
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > tight schedule to get everything I need to do done before riding
> > off
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > the sunset :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave, but a little
> > > > less
> > > > > > > available !
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bfn,
> > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the release in
> > the
> > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > hour.
> > > > > > > > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this release
> > ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a
> > little
> > > > > > > > concerned
> > > > > > > > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other
> > than
> > > > the
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's
> > or
> > > > > 0's
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > the components in the vote
> > > > > > > > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it
> > must be
> > > > > > > > included.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Carl.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote
> > > > thread.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like
> > > > this:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > > > > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the
> > python is
> > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind
> > this
> > > > in
> > > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort
> > (hopefully
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > Kevin).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our
> > efforts on
> > > > > an
> > > > > > M2
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > only includes:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> > > > > > > > > > > Java Client
> > > > > > > > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > > > > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > > > > > > > Python Client
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus.
> > I'll
> > > > > email
> > > > > > > > > > > separately
> > > > > > > > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Martin Ritchie
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
Martin,
I can help as much as I can and I hope that some of the work that we put in
to the last release want have to be repeated.
For example the legal notices, licenses etc.
If there are any new dependencies that we have added please let us know. I
will create a wiki page to track M2 progress.
I cut the M2 branch based on request by JPM. However I am (or the community)
is not sure what is happening where.
What is going on in the java trunk vs the M2 branch ? are
changes/improvements in the M2 being merged back to trunk?
When is the plan for M2 release?
So lets start there and capture the items that going in to this release.
Regards,
Rajith
On 4/10/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, Rajith,
>
> Let me say thanks aswell for stepping forward but just to let you know
> being the release manager is more than just cutting an a few RCs.
>
> The incubator has a guide which is not yet complete but a good starting
> read:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>
> In addition to this though I would say that the M2 branch has to much
> development on it to release just now. I would suggest that we need to
> set a cut off point for development. Of course having marked what
> defects are to be included in M2. Then re-branch for RC cutting and
> merging any resulting defects.
>
> Regards
>
> Martin
>
> On 10/04/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Rajith,
> >
> > Thanks !
> >
> > I think we need to create a list of tasks for M2, as we did for M1. I
> > suspect there's a lot of cleaning up to be done before we can create RCs
> ?
> >
> > We also need licenses etc all updated. A quick checlist for user docs on
> the
> > non-Java side is probably worthwhile (as this is their first release)
> ...
> >
> > Bye for now,
> > Marnie
> >
> >
> > On 4/10/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Marnie,
> > >
> > > I will help as stated and I have already created a M2 branch.
> > > I am waiting for folks to give the green light to cut the RC's
> > >
> > > Rajith
> > >
> > > On 4/10/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone want to volunteer to manage the M2 release ?
> > > >
> > > > I'm afraid that I cannot, for personal/biological reasons.
> > > >
> > > > I think M2 is pretty important for Apache Qpid in terms of progress,
> and
> > > > making a reasonably robust project available to download/use.
> > > >
> > > > Now easy on the stampede ...... :-)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > Marnie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Marnie,
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey np, I will take care of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > take it easy,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajith
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all included
> > > technologies)
> > > > -
> > > > > > thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have to opt out
> as
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily pregnant so
> working
> > > to
> > > > a
> > > > > > tight schedule to get everything I need to do done before riding
> off
> > > > > into
> > > > > > the sunset :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave, but a little
> > > less
> > > > > > available !
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bfn,
> > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the release in
> the
> > > > > next
> > > > > > > hour.
> > > > > > > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this release
> ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a
> little
> > > > > > > concerned
> > > > > > > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other
> than
> > > the
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's
> or
> > > > 0's
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > the components in the vote
> > > > > > > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it
> must be
> > > > > > > included.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Carl.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote
> > > thread.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like
> > > this:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > > > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the
> python is
> > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind
> this
> > > in
> > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort
> (hopefully
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > Kevin).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our
> efforts on
> > > > an
> > > > > M2
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > only includes:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> > > > > > > > > > Java Client
> > > > > > > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > > > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > > > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > > > > > > Python Client
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus.
> I'll
> > > > email
> > > > > > > > > > separately
> > > > > > > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
Hi, Rajith,
Let me say thanks aswell for stepping forward but just to let you know
being the release manager is more than just cutting an a few RCs.
The incubator has a guide which is not yet complete but a good starting read:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
In addition to this though I would say that the M2 branch has to much
development on it to release just now. I would suggest that we need to
set a cut off point for development. Of course having marked what
defects are to be included in M2. Then re-branch for RC cutting and
merging any resulting defects.
Regards
Martin
On 10/04/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rajith,
>
> Thanks !
>
> I think we need to create a list of tasks for M2, as we did for M1. I
> suspect there's a lot of cleaning up to be done before we can create RCs ?
>
> We also need licenses etc all updated. A quick checlist for user docs on the
> non-Java side is probably worthwhile (as this is their first release) ...
>
> Bye for now,
> Marnie
>
>
> On 4/10/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Marnie,
> >
> > I will help as stated and I have already created a M2 branch.
> > I am waiting for folks to give the green light to cut the RC's
> >
> > Rajith
> >
> > On 4/10/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > Does anyone want to volunteer to manage the M2 release ?
> > >
> > > I'm afraid that I cannot, for personal/biological reasons.
> > >
> > > I think M2 is pretty important for Apache Qpid in terms of progress, and
> > > making a reasonably robust project available to download/use.
> > >
> > > Now easy on the stampede ...... :-)
> > >
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Marnie
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marnie,
> > > >
> > > > Hey np, I will take care of it.
> > > >
> > > > take it easy,
> > > >
> > > > Rajith
> > > >
> > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all included
> > technologies)
> > > -
> > > > > thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have to opt out as
> > > I'm
> > > > > heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily pregnant so working
> > to
> > > a
> > > > > tight schedule to get everything I need to do done before riding off
> > > > into
> > > > > the sunset :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave, but a little
> > less
> > > > > available !
> > > > >
> > > > > Bfn,
> > > > > Marnie
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the release in the
> > > > next
> > > > > > hour.
> > > > > > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this release ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rajith
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a little
> > > > > > concerned
> > > > > > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other than
> > the
> > > > code
> > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's or
> > > 0's
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > the components in the vote
> > > > > > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it must be
> > > > > > included.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Carl.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote
> > thread.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like
> > this:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the python is
> > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind this
> > in
> > > > > status
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort (hopefully
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > Kevin).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our efforts on
> > > an
> > > > M2
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > only includes:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> > > > > > > > > Java Client
> > > > > > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > > > > > Python Client
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus. I'll
> > > email
> > > > > > > > > separately
> > > > > > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Rajith,
Thanks !
I think we need to create a list of tasks for M2, as we did for M1. I
suspect there's a lot of cleaning up to be done before we can create RCs ?
We also need licenses etc all updated. A quick checlist for user docs on the
non-Java side is probably worthwhile (as this is their first release) ...
Bye for now,
Marnie
On 4/10/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Marnie,
>
> I will help as stated and I have already created a M2 branch.
> I am waiting for folks to give the green light to cut the RC's
>
> Rajith
>
> On 4/10/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Does anyone want to volunteer to manage the M2 release ?
> >
> > I'm afraid that I cannot, for personal/biological reasons.
> >
> > I think M2 is pretty important for Apache Qpid in terms of progress, and
> > making a reasonably robust project available to download/use.
> >
> > Now easy on the stampede ...... :-)
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Marnie
> >
> >
> > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marnie,
> > >
> > > Hey np, I will take care of it.
> > >
> > > take it easy,
> > >
> > > Rajith
> > >
> > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rajith,
> > > >
> > > > I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all included
> technologies)
> > -
> > > > thanks.
> > > >
> > > > On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have to opt out as
> > I'm
> > > > heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily pregnant so working
> to
> > a
> > > > tight schedule to get everything I need to do done before riding off
> > > into
> > > > the sunset :-)
> > > >
> > > > I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave, but a little
> less
> > > > available !
> > > >
> > > > Bfn,
> > > > Marnie
> > > >
> > > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Marnie,
> > > > >
> > > > > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the release in the
> > > next
> > > > > hour.
> > > > > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this release ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajith
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a little
> > > > > concerned
> > > > > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other than
> the
> > > code
> > > > > :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's or
> > 0's
> > > > all
> > > > > > > the components in the vote
> > > > > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it must be
> > > > > included.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Carl.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote
> thread.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like
> this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the python is
> > > > fairly
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind this
> in
> > > > status
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort (hopefully
> > > from
> > > > > > > Kevin).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our efforts on
> > an
> > > M2
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > only includes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> > > > > > > > Java Client
> > > > > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > > > > Python Client
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus. I'll
> > email
> > > > > > > > separately
> > > > > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hey Marnie,
I will help as stated and I have already created a M2 branch.
I am waiting for folks to give the green light to cut the RC's
Rajith
On 4/10/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Does anyone want to volunteer to manage the M2 release ?
>
> I'm afraid that I cannot, for personal/biological reasons.
>
> I think M2 is pretty important for Apache Qpid in terms of progress, and
> making a reasonably robust project available to download/use.
>
> Now easy on the stampede ...... :-)
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Marnie
>
>
> On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Marnie,
> >
> > Hey np, I will take care of it.
> >
> > take it easy,
> >
> > Rajith
> >
> > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rajith,
> > >
> > > I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all included technologies)
> -
> > > thanks.
> > >
> > > On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have to opt out as
> I'm
> > > heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily pregnant so working to
> a
> > > tight schedule to get everything I need to do done before riding off
> > into
> > > the sunset :-)
> > >
> > > I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave, but a little less
> > > available !
> > >
> > > Bfn,
> > > Marnie
> > >
> > > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marnie,
> > > >
> > > > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the release in the
> > next
> > > > hour.
> > > > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this release ?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rajith
> > > >
> > > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a little
> > > > concerned
> > > > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other than the
> > code
> > > > :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Marnie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marnie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's or
> 0's
> > > all
> > > > > > the components in the vote
> > > > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it must be
> > > > included.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Carl.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the python is
> > > fairly
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind this in
> > > status
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort (hopefully
> > from
> > > > > > Kevin).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our efforts on
> an
> > M2
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > only includes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> > > > > > > Java Client
> > > > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > > > Python Client
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus. I'll
> email
> > > > > > > separately
> > > > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
All,
Does anyone want to volunteer to manage the M2 release ?
I'm afraid that I cannot, for personal/biological reasons.
I think M2 is pretty important for Apache Qpid in terms of progress, and
making a reasonably robust project available to download/use.
Now easy on the stampede ...... :-)
Thanks & Regards,
Marnie
On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Marnie,
>
> Hey np, I will take care of it.
>
> take it easy,
>
> Rajith
>
> On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rajith,
> >
> > I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all included technologies) -
> > thanks.
> >
> > On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have to opt out as I'm
> > heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily pregnant so working to a
> > tight schedule to get everything I need to do done before riding off
> into
> > the sunset :-)
> >
> > I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave, but a little less
> > available !
> >
> > Bfn,
> > Marnie
> >
> > On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marnie,
> > >
> > > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the release in the
> next
> > > hour.
> > > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this release ?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajith
> > >
> > > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a little
> > > concerned
> > > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other than the
> code
> > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Marnie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marnie,
> > > > >
> > > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's or 0's
> > all
> > > > > the components in the vote
> > > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it must be
> > > included.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Carl.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the python is
> > fairly
> > > > well
> > > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind this in
> > status
> > > > and
> > > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort (hopefully
> from
> > > > > Kevin).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our efforts on an
> M2
> > > > which
> > > > > > only includes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> > > > > > Java Client
> > > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > > Python Client
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus. I'll email
> > > > > > separately
> > > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > > Marnie
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
Marnie,
Hey np, I will take care of it.
take it easy,
Rajith
On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rajith,
>
> I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all included technologies) -
> thanks.
>
> On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have to opt out as I'm
> heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily pregnant so working to a
> tight schedule to get everything I need to do done before riding off into
> the sunset :-)
>
> I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave, but a little less
> available !
>
> Bfn,
> Marnie
>
> On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Marnie,
> >
> > If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the release in the next
> > hour.
> > Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this release ?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rajith
> >
> > On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a little
> > concerned
> > > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other than the code
> > :-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Marnie
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marnie,
> > > >
> > > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's or 0's
> all
> > > > the components in the vote
> > > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it must be
> > included.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Carl.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > > >
> > > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the python is
> fairly
> > > well
> > > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind this in
> status
> > > and
> > > > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort (hopefully from
> > > > Kevin).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our efforts on an M2
> > > which
> > > > > only includes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> > > > > Java Client
> > > > > C++ Broker
> > > > > C++ Client
> > > > > .NET Client
> > > > > Python Client
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus. I'll email
> > > > > separately
> > > > > on release branching and management.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > > Marnie
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Rajith,
I'm happy for you to cut the branch (across all included technologies) -
thanks.
On the release management front, I'm afraid I'll have to opt out as I'm
heavily loaded at the moment. I'm also heavily pregnant so working to a
tight schedule to get everything I need to do done before riding off into
the sunset :-)
I'll still be around whilst I'm on maternity leave, but a little less
available !
Bfn,
Marnie
On 3/15/07, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Marnie,
>
> If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the release in the next
> hour.
> Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this release ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajith
>
> On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a little
> concerned
> > that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other than the code
> :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marnie
> >
> >
> > On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Marnie,
> > >
> > > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's or 0's all
> > > the components in the vote
> > > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it must be
> included.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Carl.
> > >
> > >
> > > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote thread.
> > > >
> > > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like this:
> > > >
> > > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > > >
> > > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the python is fairly
> > well
> > > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind this in status
> > and
> > > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort (hopefully from
> > > Kevin).
> > > >
> > > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our efforts on an M2
> > which
> > > > only includes:
> > > >
> > > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> > > > Java Client
> > > > C++ Broker
> > > > C++ Client
> > > > .NET Client
> > > > Python Client
> > > >
> > > > I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus. I'll email
> > > > separately
> > > > on release branching and management.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > Marnie
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
Marnie,
If all parties are happy I can cut a branch for the release in the next
hour.
Marnie would u like to be the release manager for this release ?
Regards,
Rajith
On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a little concerned
> that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other than the code :-)
>
> Regards,
> Marnie
>
>
> On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marnie,
> >
> > 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's or 0's all
> > the components in the vote
> > should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it must be included.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Carl.
> >
> >
> > Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote thread.
> > >
> > > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like this:
> > >
> > > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> > >
> > > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the python is fairly
> well
> > > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind this in status
> and
> > > will shortly be subject to some additional effort (hopefully from
> > Kevin).
> > >
> > > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our efforts on an M2
> which
> > > only includes:
> > >
> > > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> > > Java Client
> > > C++ Broker
> > > C++ Client
> > > .NET Client
> > > Python Client
> > >
> > > I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus. I'll email
> > > separately
> > > on release branching and management.
> > >
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Marnie
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Ah. Good news and bad, imho. Happy to include Ruby but a little concerned
that it's not going to be release-able for reasons other than the code :-)
Regards,
Marnie
On 3/15/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> Marnie,
>
> 3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's or 0's all
> the components in the vote
> should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it must be included.
>
> Regards,
> Carl.
>
>
> Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote thread.
> >
> > I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like this:
> >
> > [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> > [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> > [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
> >
> > My reading of the discussions thus far is that the python is fairly well
> > used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind this in status and
> > will shortly be subject to some additional effort (hopefully from
> Kevin).
> >
> > Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our efforts on an M2 which
> > only includes:
> >
> > Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> > Java Client
> > C++ Broker
> > C++ Client
> > .NET Client
> > Python Client
> >
> > I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus. I'll email
> > separately
> > on release branching and management.
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Marnie
> >
>
>
Re: [RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Marnie,
3 +1's means that the vote carries, and as we have no -1's or 0's all
the components in the vote
should be included in M2. i.e. Ruby carried also so it must be included.
Regards,
Carl.
Marnie McCormack wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote thread.
>
> I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like this:
>
> [ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> [ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
> [ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
>
> My reading of the discussions thus far is that the python is fairly well
> used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind this in status and
> will shortly be subject to some additional effort (hopefully from Kevin).
>
> Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our efforts on an M2 which
> only includes:
>
> Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
> Java Client
> C++ Broker
> C++ Client
> .NET Client
> Python Client
>
> I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus. I'll email
> separately
> on release branching and management.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Marnie
>
[RESULT] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Hi All,
Thanks for your votes and input on the M2 Release vote thread.
I have now tallied up the votes cast, and they look like this:
[ +8 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
[ +6 ] Python client (plus 2 abstentions)
[ +3 ] Ruby client (plus 5 abstentions)
My reading of the discussions thus far is that the python is fairly well
used and thus maintained. The Ruby seems a bit behind this in status and
will shortly be subject to some additional effort (hopefully from Kevin).
Thus, I'd conclude that we should concentrate our efforts on an M2 which
only includes:
Java Broker (with a caveat on the clustered broker code)
Java Client
C++ Broker
C++ Client
.NET Client
Python Client
I hope that this tallies up with the group consensus. I'll email separately
on release branching and management.
Thanks & Regards,
Marnie
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
[ +1 ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
[ +1 ] Python and Ruby clients
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Kevin Smith <ks...@redhat.com>.
<snip>
>> If there's any tasks you need help with the Ruby broker, let me know.
>> I've been meaning to get into that code but haven't had the time. Now
>> that my day job is lightening up, I'd be willing to help out.
>
> Thanks for the offer. Here's a few things off the top of my head.
>
> First of all the ruby implementation isn't a broker, just a client, so
> obviously if you have any need for or interest in a full fledged ruby
> broker there is a lot left to do. ;)
>
> The 0-9 python code actually has a skeletal server framework that allows
> you to easily script various pieces of broker side functionality without
> actually writing a full fledged broker. This is something that I'd like
> to see ported to ruby as well at some point.
>
> There will also be updates necessary for 0-9/0-10, but those are still
> up in the air at the moment.
>
> Another thing that would benefit the code a lot would be to actually use
> it to implement something vaguely resembling a real app to make sure
> that we actually have reasonable API coverage for AMQP functionality.
>
> And finally if none of those things excite you there is always room for
> more test coverage. ;)
>
> --Rafael
>
Excellent. I'll start digging into this soon.
--Kevin
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Kevin Smith wrote:
>> If there's any tasks you need help with the Ruby broker, let me know.
>> I've been meaning to get into that code but haven't had the time. Now
>> that my day job is lightening up, I'd be willing to help out.
snip
> And finally if none of those things excite you there is always room
> for more test coverage. ;)
>
> --Rafael
It would be good to build up a set tests that can be used to test the
brokers, similar to what we have done in python - ideally focussing on
areas which aren't covered already by the python tests. In the long
term we may want a complete test suite in one (or both) langauges but in
the short term I've no problem with running a mixed ruby/python test
suite against the brokers if it gives better coverage. (And I like ruby
better than python ;)
Cheers,
Alan.
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
Kevin Smith wrote:
> Rafael Schloming wrote:
>> Martin Ritchie wrote:
>>> Can the Authors of the Ruby/Python speak for its current state? If we
>>> are to release python and ruby clients then all the clients should
>>> interop.
>>
>> Python should be good to go once the interop issues mentioned in
>> another thread are addressed. To my knowledge it's been a few months
>> since anyone has done anything with Ruby, so I'm rechecking whether it
>> still works now. I'll send an email when I have more info.
>>
>> --Rafael
>>
>>>
>>> On 06/03/07, Das, Kapali Tejeswar <te...@iona.com> wrote:
>>>> +1 from me.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Tejeswar
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:41 AM
>>>> To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I there are now some compelling motivations for releasing an M2.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to propose an M2, to include:
>>>>
>>>> - Java Broker
>>>> - Java Client
>>>> - C++ Broker
>>>> - C++ Client
>>>> - .NET Client
>>>>
>>>> I can speak with more authority on some areas than others, but
>>>> here's my
>>>> quick summary of major changes since M1:
>>>>
>>>> - the Java Client/Broker pass the SUN TCK making our offering in this
>>>> area
>>>> much more attractive
>>>> - the persistence rework on the Java broker is complete and
>>>> significantly
>>>> advances the functionality
>>>> - the C++ broker is ready for some real use and should get out there
>>>> for
>>>> early adopters
>>>> - the C++ client interop has been worked upon/used quite a bit in dev
>>>> - the .NET client has been substantially extended and interop improved
>>>> - and a lot of JIRAs resolved on all front, bugs and improvements
>>>>
>>>> We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board,
>>>> and
>>>> it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
>>>>
>>>> I think we also considered releasing the python and ruby for M1, but
>>>> there
>>>> were gaps in the docs etc. I'm happy that we should include these in
>>>> M2,
>>>> assuming someone is willing to contribute the required docs etc (and
>>>> they
>>>> interop).
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to structure our initial vote as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - M2 Release including Java, C++ and .NET
>>>> - Additionally python and ruby
>>>>
>>>> Let's vote first to get an idea of the consensus and then we can create
>>>> threads on release manager, dates, code freezes etc.
>>>>
>>>> We have quite a bit of work to consider/do prior to release including
>>>> interop testing, docs etc. Happy to raise JIRAs (or assist the release
>>>> manager) for an M2 set of tasks if we proceed.
>>>>
>>>> *Votes please :*
>>>>
>>>> *[ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
>>>> [ ] Python and Ruby clients
>>>>
>>>> *And here is my +1 for all both.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Marnie
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> If there's any tasks you need help with the Ruby broker, let me know.
> I've been meaning to get into that code but haven't had the time. Now
> that my day job is lightening up, I'd be willing to help out.
Thanks for the offer. Here's a few things off the top of my head.
First of all the ruby implementation isn't a broker, just a client, so
obviously if you have any need for or interest in a full fledged ruby
broker there is a lot left to do. ;)
The 0-9 python code actually has a skeletal server framework that allows
you to easily script various pieces of broker side functionality without
actually writing a full fledged broker. This is something that I'd like
to see ported to ruby as well at some point.
There will also be updates necessary for 0-9/0-10, but those are still
up in the air at the moment.
Another thing that would benefit the code a lot would be to actually use
it to implement something vaguely resembling a real app to make sure
that we actually have reasonable API coverage for AMQP functionality.
And finally if none of those things excite you there is always room for
more test coverage. ;)
--Rafael
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Kevin Smith <ks...@redhat.com>.
Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Martin Ritchie wrote:
>> Can the Authors of the Ruby/Python speak for its current state? If we
>> are to release python and ruby clients then all the clients should
>> interop.
>
> Python should be good to go once the interop issues mentioned in another
> thread are addressed. To my knowledge it's been a few months since
> anyone has done anything with Ruby, so I'm rechecking whether it still
> works now. I'll send an email when I have more info.
>
> --Rafael
>
>>
>> On 06/03/07, Das, Kapali Tejeswar <te...@iona.com> wrote:
>>> +1 from me.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Tejeswar
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:41 AM
>>> To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I there are now some compelling motivations for releasing an M2.
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose an M2, to include:
>>>
>>> - Java Broker
>>> - Java Client
>>> - C++ Broker
>>> - C++ Client
>>> - .NET Client
>>>
>>> I can speak with more authority on some areas than others, but here's my
>>> quick summary of major changes since M1:
>>>
>>> - the Java Client/Broker pass the SUN TCK making our offering in this
>>> area
>>> much more attractive
>>> - the persistence rework on the Java broker is complete and
>>> significantly
>>> advances the functionality
>>> - the C++ broker is ready for some real use and should get out there for
>>> early adopters
>>> - the C++ client interop has been worked upon/used quite a bit in dev
>>> - the .NET client has been substantially extended and interop improved
>>> - and a lot of JIRAs resolved on all front, bugs and improvements
>>>
>>> We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board,
>>> and
>>> it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
>>>
>>> I think we also considered releasing the python and ruby for M1, but
>>> there
>>> were gaps in the docs etc. I'm happy that we should include these in M2,
>>> assuming someone is willing to contribute the required docs etc (and
>>> they
>>> interop).
>>>
>>> I'd like to structure our initial vote as follows:
>>>
>>> - M2 Release including Java, C++ and .NET
>>> - Additionally python and ruby
>>>
>>> Let's vote first to get an idea of the consensus and then we can create
>>> threads on release manager, dates, code freezes etc.
>>>
>>> We have quite a bit of work to consider/do prior to release including
>>> interop testing, docs etc. Happy to raise JIRAs (or assist the release
>>> manager) for an M2 set of tasks if we proceed.
>>>
>>> *Votes please :*
>>>
>>> *[ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
>>> [ ] Python and Ruby clients
>>>
>>> *And here is my +1 for all both.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Marnie
>>>
>>
>>
>
If there's any tasks you need help with the Ruby broker, let me know. I've been
meaning to get into that code but haven't had the time. Now that my day job is
lightening up, I'd be willing to help out.
--Kevin
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
Martin Ritchie wrote:
> Can the Authors of the Ruby/Python speak for its current state? If we
> are to release python and ruby clients then all the clients should
> interop.
Python should be good to go once the interop issues mentioned in another
thread are addressed. To my knowledge it's been a few months since
anyone has done anything with Ruby, so I'm rechecking whether it still
works now. I'll send an email when I have more info.
--Rafael
>
> On 06/03/07, Das, Kapali Tejeswar <te...@iona.com> wrote:
>> +1 from me.
>>
>> Regards
>> Tejeswar
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:41 AM
>> To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I there are now some compelling motivations for releasing an M2.
>>
>> I'd like to propose an M2, to include:
>>
>> - Java Broker
>> - Java Client
>> - C++ Broker
>> - C++ Client
>> - .NET Client
>>
>> I can speak with more authority on some areas than others, but here's my
>> quick summary of major changes since M1:
>>
>> - the Java Client/Broker pass the SUN TCK making our offering in this
>> area
>> much more attractive
>> - the persistence rework on the Java broker is complete and
>> significantly
>> advances the functionality
>> - the C++ broker is ready for some real use and should get out there for
>> early adopters
>> - the C++ client interop has been worked upon/used quite a bit in dev
>> - the .NET client has been substantially extended and interop improved
>> - and a lot of JIRAs resolved on all front, bugs and improvements
>>
>> We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board,
>> and
>> it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
>>
>> I think we also considered releasing the python and ruby for M1, but
>> there
>> were gaps in the docs etc. I'm happy that we should include these in M2,
>> assuming someone is willing to contribute the required docs etc (and
>> they
>> interop).
>>
>> I'd like to structure our initial vote as follows:
>>
>> - M2 Release including Java, C++ and .NET
>> - Additionally python and ruby
>>
>> Let's vote first to get an idea of the consensus and then we can create
>> threads on release manager, dates, code freezes etc.
>>
>> We have quite a bit of work to consider/do prior to release including
>> interop testing, docs etc. Happy to raise JIRAs (or assist the release
>> manager) for an M2 set of tasks if we proceed.
>>
>> *Votes please :*
>>
>> *[ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
>> [ ] Python and Ruby clients
>>
>> *And here is my +1 for all both.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marnie
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
Can the Authors of the Ruby/Python speak for its current state? If we
are to release python and ruby clients then all the clients should
interop.
On 06/03/07, Das, Kapali Tejeswar <te...@iona.com> wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
> Regards
> Tejeswar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:41 AM
> To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
>
> Hi All,
>
> I there are now some compelling motivations for releasing an M2.
>
> I'd like to propose an M2, to include:
>
> - Java Broker
> - Java Client
> - C++ Broker
> - C++ Client
> - .NET Client
>
> I can speak with more authority on some areas than others, but here's my
> quick summary of major changes since M1:
>
> - the Java Client/Broker pass the SUN TCK making our offering in this
> area
> much more attractive
> - the persistence rework on the Java broker is complete and
> significantly
> advances the functionality
> - the C++ broker is ready for some real use and should get out there for
> early adopters
> - the C++ client interop has been worked upon/used quite a bit in dev
> - the .NET client has been substantially extended and interop improved
> - and a lot of JIRAs resolved on all front, bugs and improvements
>
> We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board,
> and
> it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
>
> I think we also considered releasing the python and ruby for M1, but
> there
> were gaps in the docs etc. I'm happy that we should include these in M2,
> assuming someone is willing to contribute the required docs etc (and
> they
> interop).
>
> I'd like to structure our initial vote as follows:
>
> - M2 Release including Java, C++ and .NET
> - Additionally python and ruby
>
> Let's vote first to get an idea of the consensus and then we can create
> threads on release manager, dates, code freezes etc.
>
> We have quite a bit of work to consider/do prior to release including
> interop testing, docs etc. Happy to raise JIRAs (or assist the release
> manager) for an M2 set of tasks if we proceed.
>
> *Votes please :*
>
> *[ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
> [ ] Python and Ruby clients
>
> *And here is my +1 for all both.
>
> Regards,
> Marnie
>
--
Martin Ritchie
RE: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Posted by "Das, Kapali Tejeswar" <te...@iona.com>.
+1 from me.
Regards
Tejeswar
-----Original Message-----
From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccormack@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:41 AM
To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Qpid M2 Release
Hi All,
I there are now some compelling motivations for releasing an M2.
I'd like to propose an M2, to include:
- Java Broker
- Java Client
- C++ Broker
- C++ Client
- .NET Client
I can speak with more authority on some areas than others, but here's my
quick summary of major changes since M1:
- the Java Client/Broker pass the SUN TCK making our offering in this
area
much more attractive
- the persistence rework on the Java broker is complete and
significantly
advances the functionality
- the C++ broker is ready for some real use and should get out there for
early adopters
- the C++ client interop has been worked upon/used quite a bit in dev
- the .NET client has been substantially extended and interop improved
- and a lot of JIRAs resolved on all front, bugs and improvements
We also need to introduce a new AMQP protocol version across the board,
and
it makes good sense to get M2 out there before we do this.
I think we also considered releasing the python and ruby for M1, but
there
were gaps in the docs etc. I'm happy that we should include these in M2,
assuming someone is willing to contribute the required docs etc (and
they
interop).
I'd like to structure our initial vote as follows:
- M2 Release including Java, C++ and .NET
- Additionally python and ruby
Let's vote first to get an idea of the consensus and then we can create
threads on release manager, dates, code freezes etc.
We have quite a bit of work to consider/do prior to release including
interop testing, docs etc. Happy to raise JIRAs (or assist the release
manager) for an M2 set of tasks if we proceed.
*Votes please :*
*[ ] M2 Release inc Java, C++, .NET
[ ] Python and Ruby clients
*And here is my +1 for all both.
Regards,
Marnie