Hi, folks. The time for 0.18 alpha is rapidly approaching, and beta soon
after. I've adjusted the dates to allow a little more time for
development, since this warning comes rather late.
0.18 alpha, 18 June Deadline for major features and disruptive
changes
I'd like to get the patch for QPID-3914 included. I should be able to get it in
this week or next.
-Steve
On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:49 PM, jr...@redhat.com wrote:
> Hi, folks. The time for 0.18 alpha is rapidly approaching, and beta soon
> after. I've adjusted the dates to allow a little more t
On 06/11/2012 10:49 PM, jr...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, folks. The time for 0.18 alpha is rapidly approaching, and beta soon after.
I've adjusted the dates to allow a little more time for development, since this
warning comes rather late.
0.18 alpha, 18 June Deadline for major features and disruptiv
Justin, Ted - I'd like to get this federation feature in for 0.18:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4063
Proposed patch attached to the jira,
thanks,
-K
- Original Message -
> Hi, folks. The time for 0.18 alpha is rapidly approaching, and beta
> soon
> after. I've adjus
Hi Justin,
on the Java Broker we're doing a fair amount of work on a new
web-based management console which we want to have in for 0.18. We're
currently doing this work on a branch that's tracking trunk. We
*could* merge this to trunk now, but we prefer only to merge work
which is fully complete
Hi Justin,
I would like to get the work I have done on the Qpid Java API
implementation over the c++ client into trunk for the 0.18 release.
This is a completely independent piece and would like to include as an
experimental feature for the 0.18 release.
I'm putting up the pieces for review as we
Hi, Steve. Reading QPID-3914, it seems there are some questions about the
patches' readiness. Do you think it's ready for inclusion? (If so,
please indicate in the jira's comments so point and counterpoint are in
one place.)
As to timing in general, I'd be willing to accept a patch for this
Hi, Rob. I don't have any objections. Since I feel better if I ask at
least one question: does the console branch contain any important changes
to the broker model or its operation? If not, I consider it safe to
include up to beta.
Justin
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Rob Godfrey wrote:
Hi Justin
Justin,
As agreed on the other thread, I agree with Rob that it's better to
hold on to the work I'm doing until we get more discussion/review.
Most of my work (barring the C++/JNI code) are going to be used for
the future client work and it's best we take more time to settle that
down.
Since we w
On 18 June 2012 19:34, Justin Ross wrote:
> Hi, Rob. I don't have any objections. Since I feel better if I ask at
> least one question: does the console branch contain any important changes to
> the broker model or its operation? If not, I consider it safe to include up
> to beta.
Nope - there
10 matches
Mail list logo