On 25 June 2012 18:09, Andrew Stitcher <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 19:07 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote: >> ... > >> The code is nearing the point where a first release is in sight, and >> this does raise two infrastructure questions. >> >> 1) We'll need to do something for bug tracking. >> 2) It would be extremely helpful to have an email list for proton users. > > As against all the other opinions here I'm of the opinion that we > already have a suitable low overhead mailing list for proton - this one > ([email protected]). > > I see no reason why you haven't already been using it for your proton > discussions and I also would rather not balkanise qpid development by > having a new developer list. > > From the qpid dev list perspective the proton work has been effectively > silent and so it can't be said that you've tried to use the dev list and > it has failed in some way. > > This list is not very busy as it is and so could easily cope with the > extra emails and I think the cross fertilisation makes sense. > > Someone suggested that this list is actually high bandwidth because of > the jiras coming here too, personally I filter them away so they don't > interfere with my own enjoyment of the list! I think the solution in > that case is to create a different list for the jiras which probably > don't add too much to the discussion on the list. > > Why do we need a new list for proton? >
So, my view on this is not so much a traffic issue but an audience and subject issue. qpid-dev tends to be discussion amongst the qpid developers, for which it works well. We have code review requests, bug reports, plans for Qpid broker/Client releases, as well as JIRA traffic. The subject is generally the existing Qpid C++ and Java brokers and clients, and aspects of using these. qpid-users is geared at end-users using the "products" that we have so far produced. What I think we are looking to do with Qpid Proton is to address a different audience, people looking to integrate AMQP 1.0 in their own projects (some may be end users, some may be "integrators", some may be working on things that might be normally thought of as "competitors" to the clients and brokers that we create). People have suggested that posts could be made to one of the existing lists with some sort of subject header distinction but this is error prone and seems like adding unnecessary complication when a new mailing list is essentially zero cost and for existing Qpid developers all that is required is subscribing to one more list. Moreover I think there is a significant distinction between the products that are built on top of our common libraries, and those common libraries themselves. As such when we are talking about Qpid Proton, it may be integrated in the (imaginary) XXXMQ broker, and XXXMQ's relationship to Qpid Proton and the Qpid Proton discussion lists should (theoretically) be the same as that between Qpid Java/C++ Broker and Qpid Proton. If we mix these lists up it makes is much harder for the (imaginary) XXXMQ community to view the Qpid Proton lists as equally applicable to them. The people I have spoken with are looking to adopt Qpid Proton as the AMQP 1.0 library of choice. I'm very keen to have that discussion happen in the open, on an Apache Qpid Proton list. I think adoption will be significantly hindered without a suitable forum for discussion. Cheers, Rob > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
