On 11/22/2010 05:44 PM, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
On 22 Nov 2010, at 18:00, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Rajith Attapattu
.
1) Have we packaged our products in a way that is useful for our target
users ?
1. I agree that providing a full, DIY source bundle is something that
should definitely be provided, but in addition to other downloads. I
don't see why both models can't coexist?
2. It should be alongside componentised or modularised binary downloads.
The installable artifacts are the brokers and the management
console/command line tools, which should be available as platform
specific binaries, installable packages of various kinds, and as a DIY
source tarball, for Java and C++.
I like this as an ideal, but only if we actually do the level of testing
needed to ensure that each component is usable as is.
Before we checked RC2, we didn't notice that many of the README.txt
files give instructions that don't work for the packages they apply to,
or that the command line management tools are available only in the full
source download, or that the README.txt for the Java client actually was
intended for the broker.
Are we going to commit to testing each of these packages? If we're going
to ship them, we need a test plan that's a little more sophisticated
than "if nobody notices a problem by a given date, or nobody fixes a
known problem that has been noticed, then it's apparently good enough".
If we're not going to commit to better testing and better consistency,
it's better to ship only the full source distribution.
Jonathan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
