I think the changes proposed look good. Killing the ruby tools bits seems reasonable, it doenst appear we are even releasing them currently.
I dont have a real problem with moving the Java tools into the new Java area, but I wouldnt say its quite as obvious a fit as the Python tools going in the C++ area, so I wouldn't be against them retaining their own area. Having one less component area to release would be beneficial I guess. The downsides are releasing them when they often have no changes made (1 trivial change this release for example), and potentially being out of cycle with the C++ release they mostly targeted. Unsure :) Robbie . On 17 March 2015 at 10:22, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/16/2015 06:12 PM, Keith W wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> I believe we reached agreement on the following thread [1] that we would >> reorganise trunk (to support independent component releases) once the 0.32 >> was branched. >> >> Justin previously published a source tree layout proposal. I have just >> extended it to include the Java subtree too. >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Source+tree+layout+proposal >> >> As 0.32 is branched (and at the voting stage), is there anything that >> blocks us from beginning the re-org task? Are there comments on the >> proposed layouts? > > > The tools/python stuff is to go with the c++ broker. I think the tools/java > stuff should go with the java broker/client as it has those as dependencies. > The tools/ruby stuff can probably be killed? > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
