I agree, very well put RG ! In terms of the details, can people start assigning Release 5 JIRAs to themselves and scoping them in, please? We can then update the roadmap/feature list from the JIRAs people have identified for inclusion.
Regards, Marnie On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Robert Greig <robert.j.gr...@gmail.com>wrote: > 2009/1/15 Aidan Skinner <aidan.skin...@gmail.com>: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >>> If the features on the page for M5 are more, shall we say, aspirational > - > >>> let's use them as a roadmap for 2009. > >> > >> I'm certainly keen on understanding how our roadmap will take us to the > >> point where all Qpid components interoperate with each other. If it is > not > >> feasible for the next release thats fine. > > > > I suspect the most achievable way to approach this is to refactor the > > broker and improve the test coverage for M5, then add extra protocols > > after that. > > Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. > > I buy the argument that a full java multi-protocol bonanza is not > achievable in M5 timeline. And I also agree that one of the key things > users want is a stable product even in unforseen production > circumstances, so flow to disk would seem to be an important feature > to add for M5. > > So if we accept that M5 will be a stability release, do we want to > risk destabilising other areas by performing signfiicant refactoring? > Even with the best efforts for test coverage, you would have to be > honest to potential users to say that there is some degree of risk in > an M5 that also had significant refactoring. > > So with that logic I'm led to the conclusion that M5 should be a > relatively focussed "stability and minor feature" release (for Java > broker at least) before it embarks upon major upheaval for M6. M6 will > probably really be a "point zero" release and users who demand total > production stability would only look to pick up M7 or M8. > > And I really think we should bin this silly Mx release numbering > convention:-) > > RG >
