On 2 December 2014 at 19:31, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> On 2 December 2014 at 19:25, Robbie Gemmell
> wrote:
>
>> On 2 December 2014 at 16:14, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>> > Can we also move from version 0.32 to something more reflective of the
>> > maturity of the product?
>> >
>>
>> Seems reasonable.
>>
>>
On 2 December 2014 at 21:59, Chuck Rolke wrote:
>> I feel like for qpidd and qpid::messaging at least, a '1.0' at this
>> point is meaningless and even perhaps confusing. They are both well past
>> that really, placing a high priority on stability and backward
>> compatibility. The 1.0 label to me
On 12/02/2014 09:59 PM, Chuck Rolke wrote:
I feel like for qpidd and qpid::messaging at least, a '1.0' at this
point is meaningless and even perhaps confusing. They are both well past
that really, placing a high priority on stability and backward
compatibility. The 1.0 label to me is more appropr
On 12/03/2014 06:54 AM, Michael Ivanov wrote:
Hallo,
I am developing an event loop which might be required to periodically send
messages to different mailboxes. I am a bit unsure whether creating Sender
object for each message does involve a lot of overhead? Can I create a Sender
each time when
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 12/02/2014 09:59 PM, Chuck Rolke wrote:
>
>> I feel like for qpidd and qpid::messaging at least, a '1.0' at this
>>> point is meaningless and even perhaps confusing. They are both well past
>>> that really, placing a high priority on stabilit
On 12/03/2014 11:02 AM, Justin Ross wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 12/02/2014 09:59 PM, Chuck Rolke wrote:
I feel like for qpidd and qpid::messaging at least, a '1.0' at this
point is meaningless and even perhaps confusing. They are both well past
that really, p
Agreed - we'd use target date.
To Robbie's earlier comment on point releases, we (Java side) might then
subsequently release a 15.1.1 as a bugfix release of 15.1, where the next
scheduled release would be a 15.5 or whatever (ideally on the java side I
think we'd like to move to more frequent relea
(My apologies if this comes through twice. I sent an earlier copy with my
apache address, and it didn't apparently make it.)
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> The releases have usually been every 4 months or so, and the branch
> for the last release was made about 4 mont
I am using qpid-cpp 0.30, I am not tied to any specific protocol version
and can use whatever is available / appropriate for my case. The rate of
the messages might be high, but important thingf that even with low message
rate the reaction to message is as fast as possible. To send messages I use
a
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> Agreed - we'd use target date.
>
Okay, that sounds good to me.
In addition to [point] releases not actually occuring at the time the
version suggests, for me another downside of using the Year.Month
approach is that it doesnt as clearly convey a sense of impact for the
changes involved in the release, i.e is it a major or minor release,
are there any compatibi
11 matches
Mail list logo
