On 1/15/09, Robert Greig wrote:
> I buy the argument that a full java multi-protocol bonanza is not
> achievable in M5 timeline. And I also agree that one of the key things
> users want is a stable product even in unforseen production
> circumstances, so flow to disk would seem to be an impor
Probably not.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
> Is the updated ACL for Java going to be committed for 5?
>
> Carl.
>
Is the updated ACL for Java going to be committed for 5?
Carl.
I agree, very well put RG !
In terms of the details, can people start assigning Release 5 JIRAs to
themselves and scoping them in, please? We can then update the
roadmap/feature list from the JIRAs people have identified for inclusion.
Regards,
Marnie
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Robert Grei
Robert Greig wrote:
2009/1/15 Aidan Skinner :
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
If the features on the page for M5 are more, shall we say, aspirational -
let's use them as a roadmap for 2009.
I'm certainly keen on understanding how our roadmap will take us
And I really think we should bin this silly Mx release numbering convention:-)
+1
For 5 I vote we drop the M.
Carl.
2009/1/15 Aidan Skinner :
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>
>>> If the features on the page for M5 are more, shall we say, aspirational -
>>> let's use them as a roadmap for 2009.
>>
>> I'm certainly keen on understanding how our roadmap will take us to the
>> point where all
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Marnie McCormack
wrote:
> Let's try to narrow this list down a bit for a target M5 timescale ?
>
> As we've chatted about, I agree we should timebox our releases. But I think
> the Doctor might struggle with that lot before end March :-)
Obviously it depends on h
Let's try to narrow this list down a bit for a target M5 timescale ?
As we've chatted about, I agree we should timebox our releases. But I think
the Doctor might struggle with that lot before end March :-)
Bfn,
Marnie
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 200
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Marnie McCormack
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Aidan Skinner wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>
>> >> If the features on the page for M5 are more, shall we say, aspirational
>> -
>> >> let's use them as a roadmap for 200
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>
> >> If the features on the page for M5 are more, shall we say, aspirational
> -
> >> let's use them as a roadmap for 2009.
> >
> > I'm certainly keen on understanding how our roadmap wil
Aidan Skinner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
If the features on the page for M5 are more, shall we say, aspirational -
let's use them as a roadmap for 2009.
I'm certainly keen on understanding how our roadmap will take us to the
point where all Qpid components inte
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>> If the features on the page for M5 are more, shall we say, aspirational -
>> let's use them as a roadmap for 2009.
>
> I'm certainly keen on understanding how our roadmap will take us to the
> point where all Qpid components interoperate with
Gordon Sim wrote:
Marnie McCormack wrote:
The build window for a March release is around 55 days (allowing for
some
testing time). Not a huge amount, given utilisation etc.
Maybe March is too soon?
I would say end April at the latest.
Carl.
Hi,
I think (and some of this I wasn't around for) that we had agreed that more
was more on the release front. Certainly it gives us more
confidence/motivation to keep everything in good shape on trunk (i.e. test
it !).
For the Java releases, I'd personally rather keep an early & frequent
approac
Marnie McCormack wrote:
The build window for a March release is around 55 days (allowing for some
testing time). Not a huge amount, given utilisation etc.
Maybe March is too soon?
If the features on the page for M5 are more, shall we say, aspirational -
let's use them as a roadmap for 2009.
Reading this, I think we're danger of being a little over-optimistic for M5
scope.
I'd be keen to take a more considered approach to scoping M5, with estimates
(very much ballpark) on the existing JIRAs we're looking at implementing. On
the Java broker side, we need to focus on robustness and reli
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> One specific question I'd like to raise is getting interop between all
> components. I think that is a very important goal. Can we manage it for the
> next release? I think the best way to do that would be 0-10 support for the
> java broker.
A
2009/1/14 Gordon Sim :
> On the c++ side I would personally like to see a relatively light list of
> features (selectors, priorities) with more focus on consolidation (e.g.
> ensuring that federation, clustering, ssl, sasl security layers, rdma etc
> all work well in combination) and perhaps some
Carl Trieloff wrote:
We need to pick a close down date for M5, and then it would be good for
everyone to list the key things they want to do for it. I have started a
list here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/looking+to+pitch+in
Please add / edit as needed. I am thinking close
Hi Steve,
This can also be customized with the MPC tool... Let's talk more about
what the ultimate goal of this effort is.
The idea is to let anybody having an Express Edition of VS and the
Platform SDK installed on his system manage Qpid build with nmake. I
strongly believe we should have
Danushka Menikkumbura wrote:
We need to pick a close down date for M5, and then it would be good for
everyone to list the key things they want to do for it. I have started a
list here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/looking+to+pitch+in
Please add / edit as needed. I am thin
Hi Danushka,
> > We need to pick a close down date for M5, and then it would
> be good for
> > everyone to list the key things they want to do for it. I
> have started a
> > list here:
> >
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/looking+to+pitch+in
> >
> Hi Carl,
>
> I have started to
We need to pick a close down date for M5, and then it would be good for
everyone to list the key things they want to do for it. I have started a
list here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/looking+to+pitch+in
Please add / edit as needed. I am thinking close down for M5 in Marc
Aidan Skinner wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
We need to pick a close down date for M5, and then it would be good for
everyone to list the key things they want to do for it. I have started a
list here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/looking+to+p
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> We need to pick a close down date for M5, and then it would be good for
> everyone to list the key things they want to do for it. I have started a
> list here:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/looking+to+pitch+in
Is there a
Hi Carl,
Will update once I've completed some final planning this end. My impression
is that the list is large on the Java side with some complex pieces of work.
>From my pov, Flow To Disk is getting urgent and more compelling than some
other changes - this'd be my choice of big ticket item. Ill
27 matches
Mail list logo
