On 29/08/2007, Robert Greig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 29/08/2007, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It ignores the bigger picture and this is where I think we need to > > take a moment. Interoperability was one of the highest goals for M2, > > but is interoperability with ourselves really enough? Given that our > > 0_8 spec is a hybrid with some 0_9 and 0_10 features can we really > > claim that this is an AMQP product? > > One question I have is this: how many of the changes we made in 0-8 > went into 0-9? Why are we not 0-9 (non-WIP) for M2? > > RG
Given that M2 has taken so long I can understand the desire to release it, but now that you state the obvious.. that we are not using 0-9 I have to wonder if we should re-scope M2. This would IMO work out nicely: M1 = AMQP 0_8 M2 = AMQP 0_9 M3 = AMQP 0_10 The more we talk about this the less convinced I am that we should release M2 in the current state. -- Martin Ritchie
