John,
I would not really agree, the trunk should represent our forward
development. If we want to create
stable releases, these should be done with a branch. It might even be
worth releases the branch as a M2.
I was able to meet with a few other long term apache members last week
while in business and asked about
creating branches for use as stable versions when project members needed
them and that did not align with the
release cycle if the main project. This is done on other projects and
from what I can tell is accepted practice.
Regards
Carl.
John O'Hara wrote:
One other thing. We'll be sending real business over the 0-9 (non-WIP)
protocol.
We want to be very very sure that the WIP transport has been thoroughly
tested before running it for real.
That burden of proof should fall on the branch, imho.
John
On 23/01/07, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To be 0-9 compliant, you have to support the 0-8 framing by default.
We can't ship at all if we're not compliant..... eating own dog food and
all that!
Clients have to connect as version 99-0 to get the WIP framing.
If that in itself does not resolve the connection issue, then an
errata to
enable that detection should be added to the spec.
Cheers
John
On 17/01/07, Kim van der Riet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 13:11 +0000, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> > Are you saying we will not support those parts of 0-9 which are also
> in 0-8
> > (i.e. Basic, File and Stream)?
> >
> > As far as I understand it, those are still in the spec although
marked
> as
> > likely to be replaced. If we are claiming spec compliance should we
> not
> > still support these classes for the moment? If spec compliance
is not
> our
> > goal (i.e. we are really anticipating a later version of the spec
> where
> > these elements have been removed) we should be clear about that. On
> other
> > threads we have been quite reluctant to get "ahead of the spec".
> >
> > - Rob
>
> IIRC, there are some difficulties in supporting both at the same
time -
> issues that the protocol does not resolve. For example, framing:
When a
> ProtocolInitiation is received by the broker, how does it know whether
> to use the new request/response framing or old MethodBody frame to
send
> the Connection.Start method?
>
> However, your question on how we label an implementation that supports
> only 0-9 WIP is valid. It cannot be strictly 0-9 compliant, so perhaps
> we should call it 0-9-WIP compliant instead.
>
> Kim
>
>
