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:
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 01/19/2015 02:45 PM, Michael Ivanov wrote:
Hallo,
I'm using c++ broker and c++ messageger interface to send the messages.
I am setting the contents of the messages using encode() function
(converts Variant::Map to Message). What should I use on Java side
to decode these messages? How should
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Steve Huston shus...@riverace.com wrote:
Sorry to chime in late on this - I saw the discussions going by in
December but paid no attention as I was mostly not working then.
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent:
Hi Helen,
apologies for taking so long to respond
On 6 January 2015 at 02:12, Helen Kwong helenkw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rob,
I finally got back to testing multiple queues on a consumer again, using
the changes you added to help with fairness. My broker jvm is running with
Sorry to chime in late on this - I saw the discussions going by in December but
paid no attention as I was mostly not working then.
-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++
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
11 matches
Mail list logo