On 18 March 2015 at 21:51, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/18/2015 08:58 PM, Keith W wrote: > >> I've updated the proposal page to split out tools by itself. Just to >> clarify the top level names: Robbie is correct, the names won't have the >> qpid- prefix whilst they remain in SVN. The "Proposed source location" >> captures this in each case. >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/ >> Source+tree+layout+proposal >> > > I thought it was just the java-qmf tools that would be on their own? I > think having the python tools with the c++ broker, as in the original > proposal, makes sense. > > Ah, I'd misunderstood. So we are saying we need a java-qmf-tools at the top level. That works for me.
> What about the cpp-broker and programming docbooks? As we'll want to have >> these versioned along with the software they describe, I think it makes >> most sense to move the cpp-broker docbook to the cpp tree. For the >> programming docbook it is a little more tricky as it describes Java, .NET, >> C++ and Python. It might be best to split off the Java portion as a >> separate docbook and incorporate into the java tree. Does the remainder >> move to the cpp tree? >> > > Yes, I think that makes sense for now. > > Ok. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
