You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@qpid.apache.org by Keith W <ke...@gmail.com> on 2017/04/03 13:53:11 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate Qpid Broker for Java and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x
Client from SVN to GIT
On 31 March 2017 at 10:57, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 March 2017 at 12:32, Lorenz Quack <qu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 on the migration to git.
>>
>> Regarding the name of the broker's git repo:
>> * qpid-broker: I agree with others that this might lead to confusions
>> with the cpp broker.
>> * qpid-java-broker: I am worried that legal will not be happy with this
>> since Java is a trademark. See [1] and [2].
>> * This leaves qpid-broker-for-java and qpid-broker-j.
>> Between those two I favour qpid-broker-for-java since that is what was
>> decided in [1]. I agree that it is a bit wordy but we won't have to
>> type it a lot and it is consistent with the other usages like
>> documentation and representation on the web page.
>>
>>
> So my view here is that "Qpid Broker for Java" is essentially the wrong
> name in every context :-) The fact that the Broker is written in Java is
> really incidental to its function and unless you are looking at deploying
> on a platform that doesn't support Java, it really shouldn't make any
> difference to an end user. personally I would have gone for qpidj-broker or
> qpid-broker-j for the product name and the repo name.
I agree. I only wish we'd had the same thought a few months back when
the Qpid Broker for Java was named that way :)
I prefer qpid-broker-j. My suggestion is that we adopt it for both
the new git repo name and the name of the product appearing in notice,
license files, documentation, website and maven metadata descriptions
etc. The Maven artefact names will be left unchanged.
>
> On the legal concerns, I don't see why the git repo name would be different
> from a legal standpoint to the maven artefact names... if we believe that
> the git repo name is an issue then we should also be changing the maven
> names... and again I would think that "qpid-broker-for-java" would be a
> stupid maven artefact name too :-)
>
> -- Rob
>
>
>> Kind regards,
>> Lorenz
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7341
>> [2] http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Apache-Qpid-Java-naming-co
>> ncerns-td7648059.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30/03/17 11:12, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for migration from svn to git
>>>
>>> I would use qpid-java-broker as a name for the repo, as it is a bit
>>> shorter
>>> than qpid-broker-for-java.
>>> I'd also be Ok with 'qpid-broker-for-java' as a name for the repo. In
>>> general I prefer full names over the abbreviations or truncations of the
>>> words. Mixing abbreviation with full words looks a bit unusual to me.
>>> Thus,
>>> I would vote against 'qpid-broker-j'.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> On 27 March 2017 at 14:15, Justin Ross <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I like qpid-broker-j best of the alternatives proposed. I think
>>>> qpid-broker alone will cause a little confusion.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 12:35, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 10:47, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 11:31, Keith W <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now the Qpid Broker for Java and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client are
>>>>>>>> separated [1]/[2], I'd like to propose the final two remaining Qpid
>>>>>>>> components are migrated from SVN to GIT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Qpid Broker for Java
>>>>>>>> * Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This will give us a consistent, Git based, version control approach
>>>>>>>> across the whole project and therefore a simpler 'getting involved'
>>>>>>>> story that should benefit the community as a whole.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The source code migration will maintain source code history,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> including
>>>>
>>>>> existing release branches and tags made since r1673693/QPID-6481 [3]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The intention would be for all future releases to be made from git.
>>>>>>>> This would include any future maintenance releases from 6.0.x and
>>>>>>>> 6.1.x (which would remain combined broker/client releases).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Qpid Broker for Java:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Current SVN location: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/java/
>>>>>>>> Proposed GIT repo: git://git.apache.org/qpid-broker
>>>>>>>> <http://git.apache.org/qpid-broker-for-java.git>-for-java.git
>>>>>>>> <http://git.apache.org/qpid-broker-for-java.git>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we have to make the repo name quite so wordy? :-) git://
>>>>>>> git.apache.org/qpid-broker.git would work for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The existing GIT mirror at git://git.apache.org/qpid-java.git would
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cease.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Current SVN location: https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>>>>>> asf/qpid/qpid-jms-amqp-0-x/
>>>>>>>> Proposed GIT repo: git://git.apache.org/qpid-jms-amqp-0-x.git
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The existing GIT mirror at git://git.apache.org/qpid-jms-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> amqp-0-x.git
>>>>
>>>>> would become the 'live' repo..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No objections on the client side, and OK on the broker side with the
>>>>>>> proviso that I'd prefer a shorter repo name :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-the-AMQP-0-x-
>>>>>>>> client-from-the-Qpid-for-Java-7-0-release-td7657770.html
>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7622
>>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-6481
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also not hugely fond of 'qpid-broker-for-java' as a repo name.
>>>>>> Using only 'qpid-broker' doesn't necessarily do a great job of
>>>>>> signalling which broker it contains, though the contents would make it
>>>>>> pretty obvious and seeing that the cpp broker is in 'qpid-cpp' isn't
>>>>>> much of a stretch or that surprising (particularly as its been there a
>>>>>> while now, and I doubt we will separate those bits further). Adding
>>>>>> '-j' might be another option though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above was literally my reasoning as I considered what name I would
>>>>>
>>>> give
>>>>
>>>>> it... I'd also be happy with qpid-broker-j however that's not what we
>>>>>
>>>> call
>>>>
>>>>> it in maven, etc (though I wouldn't be hugely upset to rename it
>>>>> consistently).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless which of these its called, happy to proceed and will be
>>>>>> glad to see them moved to git.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Side note, git.apache.org doesn't actually hold the live repos, just
>>>>>> mirrors. The actual writable repos would be at
>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/<name>.git
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate Qpid Broker for Java and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x
Client from SVN to GIT
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 3 April 2017 at 15:53, Keith W <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 March 2017 at 10:57, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 30 March 2017 at 12:32, Lorenz Quack <qu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 on the migration to git.
> >>
> >> Regarding the name of the broker's git repo:
> >> * qpid-broker: I agree with others that this might lead to confusions
> >> with the cpp broker.
> >> * qpid-java-broker: I am worried that legal will not be happy with this
> >> since Java is a trademark. See [1] and [2].
> >> * This leaves qpid-broker-for-java and qpid-broker-j.
> >> Between those two I favour qpid-broker-for-java since that is what was
> >> decided in [1]. I agree that it is a bit wordy but we won't have to
> >> type it a lot and it is consistent with the other usages like
> >> documentation and representation on the web page.
> >>
> >>
> > So my view here is that "Qpid Broker for Java" is essentially the wrong
> > name in every context :-) The fact that the Broker is written in Java is
> > really incidental to its function and unless you are looking at deploying
> > on a platform that doesn't support Java, it really shouldn't make any
> > difference to an end user. personally I would have gone for qpidj-broker
> or
> > qpid-broker-j for the product name and the repo name.
>
>
> I agree. I only wish we'd had the same thought a few months back when
> the Qpid Broker for Java was named that way :)
>
I think the naming is in some ways simpler now with the broker and client
completely separated. Each can have a name which properly reflects their
purpose since we don't have a single "for java" combined release.
>
> I prefer qpid-broker-j. My suggestion is that we adopt it for both
> the new git repo name and the name of the product appearing in notice,
> license files, documentation, website and maven metadata descriptions
> etc. The Maven artefact names will be left unchanged.
>
>
+1 from me :-)
-- Rob
>
> >
> > On the legal concerns, I don't see why the git repo name would be
> different
> > from a legal standpoint to the maven artefact names... if we believe that
> > the git repo name is an issue then we should also be changing the maven
> > names... and again I would think that "qpid-broker-for-java" would be a
> > stupid maven artefact name too :-)
> >
> > -- Rob
> >
> >
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Lorenz
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7341
> >> [2] http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Apache-Qpid-Java-naming-co
> >> ncerns-td7648059.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 30/03/17 11:12, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 for migration from svn to git
> >>>
> >>> I would use qpid-java-broker as a name for the repo, as it is a bit
> >>> shorter
> >>> than qpid-broker-for-java.
> >>> I'd also be Ok with 'qpid-broker-for-java' as a name for the repo. In
> >>> general I prefer full names over the abbreviations or truncations of
> the
> >>> words. Mixing abbreviation with full words looks a bit unusual to me.
> >>> Thus,
> >>> I would vote against 'qpid-broker-j'.
> >>>
> >>> Kind Regards,
> >>> Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 27 March 2017 at 14:15, Justin Ross <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I like qpid-broker-j best of the alternatives proposed. I think
> >>>> qpid-broker alone will cause a little confusion.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 27 March 2017 at 12:35, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 10:47, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 11:31, Keith W <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi all
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Now the Qpid Broker for Java and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client are
> >>>>>>>> separated [1]/[2], I'd like to propose the final two remaining
> Qpid
> >>>>>>>> components are migrated from SVN to GIT.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * Qpid Broker for Java
> >>>>>>>> * Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This will give us a consistent, Git based, version control
> approach
> >>>>>>>> across the whole project and therefore a simpler 'getting
> involved'
> >>>>>>>> story that should benefit the community as a whole.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The source code migration will maintain source code history,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> including
> >>>>
> >>>>> existing release branches and tags made since r1673693/QPID-6481 [3]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The intention would be for all future releases to be made from
> git.
> >>>>>>>> This would include any future maintenance releases from 6.0.x and
> >>>>>>>> 6.1.x (which would remain combined broker/client releases).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Qpid Broker for Java:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Current SVN location: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/java/
> >>>>>>>> Proposed GIT repo: git://git.apache.org/qpid-broker
> >>>>>>>> <http://git.apache.org/qpid-broker-for-java.git>-for-java.git
> >>>>>>>> <http://git.apache.org/qpid-broker-for-java.git>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do we have to make the repo name quite so wordy? :-) git://
> >>>>>>> git.apache.org/qpid-broker.git would work for me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The existing GIT mirror at git://git.apache.org/qpid-java.git
> would
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> cease.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Current SVN location: https://svn.apache.org/repos/
> >>>>>>>> asf/qpid/qpid-jms-amqp-0-x/
> >>>>>>>> Proposed GIT repo: git://git.apache.org/qpid-jms-amqp-0-x.git
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The existing GIT mirror at git://git.apache.org/qpid-jms-
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> amqp-0-x.git
> >>>>
> >>>>> would become the 'live' repo..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No objections on the client side, and OK on the broker side with
> the
> >>>>>>> proviso that I'd prefer a shorter repo name :-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -- Rob
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1] http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-the-AMQP-0-x-
> >>>>>>>> client-from-the-Qpid-for-Java-7-0-release-td7657770.html
> >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7622
> >>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-6481
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm also not hugely fond of 'qpid-broker-for-java' as a repo name.
> >>>>>> Using only 'qpid-broker' doesn't necessarily do a great job of
> >>>>>> signalling which broker it contains, though the contents would make
> it
> >>>>>> pretty obvious and seeing that the cpp broker is in 'qpid-cpp' isn't
> >>>>>> much of a stretch or that surprising (particularly as its been
> there a
> >>>>>> while now, and I doubt we will separate those bits further). Adding
> >>>>>> '-j' might be another option though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The above was literally my reasoning as I considered what name I
> would
> >>>>>
> >>>> give
> >>>>
> >>>>> it... I'd also be happy with qpid-broker-j however that's not what we
> >>>>>
> >>>> call
> >>>>
> >>>>> it in maven, etc (though I wouldn't be hugely upset to rename it
> >>>>> consistently).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regardless which of these its called, happy to proceed and will be
> >>>>>> glad to see them moved to git.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- Rob
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Side note, git.apache.org doesn't actually hold the live repos, just
> >>>>>> mirrors. The actual writable repos would be at
> >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/<name>.git
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Robbie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate Qpid Broker for Java and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x
Client from SVN to GIT
Posted by Lorenz Quack <qu...@gmail.com>.
On 03/04/17 14:53, Keith W wrote:
> On 31 March 2017 at 10:57, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30 March 2017 at 12:32, Lorenz Quack <qu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on the migration to git.
>>>
>>> Regarding the name of the broker's git repo:
>>> * qpid-broker: I agree with others that this might lead to confusions
>>> with the cpp broker.
>>> * qpid-java-broker: I am worried that legal will not be happy with this
>>> since Java is a trademark. See [1] and [2].
>>> * This leaves qpid-broker-for-java and qpid-broker-j.
>>> Between those two I favour qpid-broker-for-java since that is what was
>>> decided in [1]. I agree that it is a bit wordy but we won't have to
>>> type it a lot and it is consistent with the other usages like
>>> documentation and representation on the web page.
>>>
>>>
>> So my view here is that "Qpid Broker for Java" is essentially the wrong
>> name in every context :-) The fact that the Broker is written in Java is
>> really incidental to its function and unless you are looking at deploying
>> on a platform that doesn't support Java, it really shouldn't make any
>> difference to an end user. personally I would have gone for qpidj-broker or
>> qpid-broker-j for the product name and the repo name.
>
> I agree. I only wish we'd had the same thought a few months back when
> the Qpid Broker for Java was named that way :)
>
> I prefer qpid-broker-j. My suggestion is that we adopt it for both
> the new git repo name and the name of the product appearing in notice,
> license files, documentation, website and maven metadata descriptions
> etc. The Maven artefact names will be left unchanged.
>
Fine. I just wanted consistency between all those places you mentioned.
I wanted to avoid the work of changing all of them but I also agree that
the Qpid Broker for Java is not a good name so I'm okay with qpid-broker-j
>> On the legal concerns, I don't see why the git repo name would be different
>> from a legal standpoint to the maven artefact names... if we believe that
>> the git repo name is an issue then we should also be changing the maven
>> names... and again I would think that "qpid-broker-for-java" would be a
>> stupid maven artefact name too :-)
>>
>> -- Rob
>>
>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Lorenz
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7341
>>> [2] http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Apache-Qpid-Java-naming-co
>>> ncerns-td7648059.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30/03/17 11:12, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for migration from svn to git
>>>>
>>>> I would use qpid-java-broker as a name for the repo, as it is a bit
>>>> shorter
>>>> than qpid-broker-for-java.
>>>> I'd also be Ok with 'qpid-broker-for-java' as a name for the repo. In
>>>> general I prefer full names over the abbreviations or truncations of the
>>>> words. Mixing abbreviation with full words looks a bit unusual to me.
>>>> Thus,
>>>> I would vote against 'qpid-broker-j'.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 14:15, Justin Ross <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I like qpid-broker-j best of the alternatives proposed. I think
>>>>> qpid-broker alone will cause a little confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 12:35, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 10:47, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 11:31, Keith W <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>>> Now the Qpid Broker for Java and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client are
>>>>>>>>> separated [1]/[2], I'd like to propose the final two remaining Qpid
>>>>>>>>> components are migrated from SVN to GIT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Qpid Broker for Java
>>>>>>>>> * Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This will give us a consistent, Git based, version control approach
>>>>>>>>> across the whole project and therefore a simpler 'getting involved'
>>>>>>>>> story that should benefit the community as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The source code migration will maintain source code history,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>> existing release branches and tags made since r1673693/QPID-6481 [3]
>>>>>>>>> The intention would be for all future releases to be made from git.
>>>>>>>>> This would include any future maintenance releases from 6.0.x and
>>>>>>>>> 6.1.x (which would remain combined broker/client releases).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Qpid Broker for Java:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Current SVN location: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/java/
>>>>>>>>> Proposed GIT repo: git://git.apache.org/qpid-broker
>>>>>>>>> <http://git.apache.org/qpid-broker-for-java.git>-for-java.git
>>>>>>>>> <http://git.apache.org/qpid-broker-for-java.git>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we have to make the repo name quite so wordy? :-) git://
>>>>>>>> git.apache.org/qpid-broker.git would work for me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The existing GIT mirror at git://git.apache.org/qpid-java.git would
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cease.
>>>>>>>> Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client:
>>>>>>>>> Current SVN location: https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>>>>>>> asf/qpid/qpid-jms-amqp-0-x/
>>>>>>>>> Proposed GIT repo: git://git.apache.org/qpid-jms-amqp-0-x.git
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The existing GIT mirror at git://git.apache.org/qpid-jms-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> amqp-0-x.git
>>>>>> would become the 'live' repo..
>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No objections on the client side, and OK on the broker side with the
>>>>>>>> proviso that I'd prefer a shorter repo name :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Rob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-the-AMQP-0-x-
>>>>>>>>> client-from-the-Qpid-for-Java-7-0-release-td7657770.html
>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7622
>>>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-6481
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm also not hugely fond of 'qpid-broker-for-java' as a repo name.
>>>>>>> Using only 'qpid-broker' doesn't necessarily do a great job of
>>>>>>> signalling which broker it contains, though the contents would make it
>>>>>>> pretty obvious and seeing that the cpp broker is in 'qpid-cpp' isn't
>>>>>>> much of a stretch or that surprising (particularly as its been there a
>>>>>>> while now, and I doubt we will separate those bits further). Adding
>>>>>>> '-j' might be another option though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above was literally my reasoning as I considered what name I would
>>>>> give
>>>>>
>>>>>> it... I'd also be happy with qpid-broker-j however that's not what we
>>>>>>
>>>>> call
>>>>>
>>>>>> it in maven, etc (though I wouldn't be hugely upset to rename it
>>>>>> consistently).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regardless which of these its called, happy to proceed and will be
>>>>>>> glad to see them moved to git.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> -- Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Side note, git.apache.org doesn't actually hold the live repos, just
>>>>>>> mirrors. The actual writable repos would be at
>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/<name>.git
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>
>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org