On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/13/2012 07:36 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: >> >> We should probably have a general discussion about what we want to do >> as a project going forward. >> While it's difficult to nail down a set strategy as a lot of pieces >> are still evolving, an honest dialogue about what we would want "QPid" >> to become is a good thing to have. > > > Always true! However my point was that we don't need to tie that to the > naming (or existence) of the proposed list.
I totally agree. But in reality I think that lack of consensus (and/or understanding) on the bigger picture has contributed to this issue in some way. Rajith > As I understand it there is a desire for a proton list. Though there may not > be complete clarity on the scope of proton or its relationship to other > pieces in the Qpid picture, I think it would at least be clear what that > list was for. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
