On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 19:03 +, Fraser Adams wrote:
I know this has been discussed previously, but looking at 15.02 in the
cold hard light of day just looks, well, weird to my eyes :-(
Perhaps it's just 'cause it's new and I'm not used to seeing versions
like that, but I have to be
On 01/20/2015 03:57 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:49 AM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Qpid C++ and Python 15.02 - Alpha approaches
On 01/20/2015 03:37 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
http://qpid
On 01/20/2015 04:27 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
The JIRA workflow I've used for proton to date has
somewhat depended on being able to predict the next release number given
the current release number. I would argue that's a nice property to have
for version numbers in general, e.g. being able to
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Justin Ross justin.r...@gmail.com wrote:
We can still change it. I know Robbie isn't sold either, and I'm open to
the alternative we discussed: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc.
It might be worth a recap of the original discussion since it happened so
near the holidays,
On 01/20/2015 03:37 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Any-ETA-on-a-QPid-0-32-release-td7617054.html
Yes, the generally agreed goal is to move away from 0. for our now mature
components. I don't think any suggestion was made about Proton.
Most participants on that thread
http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Any-ETA-on-a-QPid-0-32-release-td7617054.html
Yes, the generally agreed goal is to move away from 0. for our now mature
components. I don't think any suggestion was made about Proton.
Most participants on that thread favored a YY.MM (Year, Month) scheme, so
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:37:25AM -0500, Justin Ross wrote:
http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Any-ETA-on-a-QPid-0-32-release-td7617054.html
Yes, the generally agreed goal is to move away from 0. for our now mature
components. I don't think any suggestion was made about Proton.
Most
: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:49 AM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Qpid C++ and Python 15.02 - Alpha approaches
On 01/20/2015 03:37 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Any-ETA-on-a-QPid-0-32-release-
td761
7054.html
Yes, the generally agreed goal
++ and Python 15.02 - Alpha approaches
On 01/20/2015 03:37 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Any-ETA-on-a-QPid-0-32-release-
td761
7054.html
Yes, the generally agreed goal is to move away from 0. for our now
mature components. I don't think any suggestion was made
FWIW I quite like your suggestion below about the Firefox style. It's
enough of a change getting rid of the 0. part to signal
maturity, but it essentially follows the existing convention, so is
unlikely to be too confusing to anyone (plus it looks less weird :-))
Can someone remind me what the
We can still change it. I know Robbie isn't sold either, and I'm open to
the alternative we discussed: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc.
I should note that while I think the date-based approach is reasonable,
it's not a good fit for a pure-API module such as qpid-proton or qpid-jms.
There I think you want the
I know this has been discussed previously, but looking at 15.02 in the
cold hard light of day just looks, well, weird to my eyes :-(
Perhaps it's just 'cause it's new and I'm not used to seeing versions
like that, but I have to be honest, I'm still not sold. I know there's
reasons for the
12 matches
Mail list logo
