This thread seems to be following many paths of discussion...
Anyway, all M2 changes merged onto trunk. The only real difference between trunk and M2 is that Robert moved some of the code generation templates on trunk to a different location, and there was a patch to fix ip numbers bigger than 127. The ip number one looks like it might be worth putting on M2 too? Think I might try and set up a timed job on my pc to print out svnmerge avail once a day, and then mail it to the list, to help everyone keep on top of outstanding merges. Rupert On 19/04/07, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19/04/07, Robert Greig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 19/04/07, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That said, I'm thinking that investing too much work on the M2 branch > for > > > the .NET client is not going to be possible. I think to get the .NET > > > client > > > to a fully stable v0-8 client is going to still take a while, and if > we're > > > going to embark on also going for 0-10 (which seems fine by me from > what > > > I've read on the protocol working group lists), it seems like there's > a > > > lot > > > of work ahead. > > > > yes - this sounds very sensible. As a group we should look at client > and > > broker architectures and how 0-10 is going to affect our design. > > Do we have any idea when 0-10 is going to be ratified by the AMQP > working group? My only concern would be if the WG cannot agree on 0-10 > we could end up somewhat in limbo for a while. > > RG Yes - this is something of a worry. However there is quite a lot in 0-10 that is key to forward progress for Qpid ... Hopefully by the end of next week we should have a clearer idea for a date on the 0-10 public specification release. -- Rob
