[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4502?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13557173#comment-13557173
]
Robbie Gemmell commented on QPID-4502:
--
Following on from the previous comment...the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4371?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13557203#comment-13557203
]
Darryl L. Pierce commented on QPID-4371:
This is resolved in 4372 with the Makefile
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4371?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Darryl L. Pierce resolved QPID-4371.
Resolution: Fixed
The extra_dist/Makefile does not include qpidtypes or stdc++ for
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4372?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Darryl L. Pierce resolved QPID-4372.
Resolution: Fixed
Have the C++ examples use CMake rather than static Makefiles.
Weston M. Price created QPID-4542:
-
Summary: Improve Logging/Reporting in JCA adapter
Key: QPID-4542
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4542
Project: Qpid
Issue Type:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Robbie Gemmell robbie.gemm...@gmail.comwrote:
The only time your really want to do the id preservation is when a
'foreign' jms message is being sent. At least this is what ActiveMQ
does.
If a Qpid JMS message is sent on an ActiveMQ sender, the message id
On 01/16/2013 09:51 AM, Faye Williams wrote:
Hi there,
I have tried multiple times, but unsubscribing (both via the link in the
email and the same email address on the site) fails to unsubscribe me.
How can I get off of the users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org mailing list??
Thanks.
Faye.
I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large
part of the
+1
I think this is a real problem and I would be supportive of
consolidating all of the discussion into one list. We either exclude
people by sending to one list or, like this email, we include all lists
and everybody gets three copies.
-Ted
On 01/18/2013 12:21 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
I
On 01/18/2013 05:33 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
We either exclude people by sending to one list or, like this email, we
include all lists and everybody gets three copies.
Its not the duplicate copies that are the biggest issue with cross
posting in my view, its the tendency for the thread to get
On Jan 18, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Gordon Sim g...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/18/2013 05:33 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
We either exclude people by sending to one list or, like this email, we
include all lists and everybody gets three copies.
Its not the duplicate copies that are the biggest issue with
I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
If not that, then at least collapse the proton list. The level of traffic
on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it separate probably
leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals of this project.
-K
- Original
I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list. Also, it's
useful for much of the development info to be open to the users list. My only
concern for a second list is for things that committers may need to talk about
but which the larger user community doesn't care about. For
I'm one of those ordinary users on mailing lists for other projects,
and to me it's not a point of irritation seeing the developers at
work. Rather, I enjoy it. Of course, I must allow that our users may
not all feel the way I do.
Justin
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Steve Huston
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +, Gordon Sim wrote:
snip
Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
with unwanted emails?
I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
lists, a project like Qpid doesn't really have a separate of users and
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 02:19:01PM -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +, Gordon Sim wrote:
snip
Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
with unwanted emails?
I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
On Jan 18, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +, Gordon Sim wrote:
snip
Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
with unwanted emails?
I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4095?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13557564#comment-13557564
]
Chuck Rolke commented on QPID-4095:
---
Commit r1435326 gets rid of Boost filesystem
I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've seen,
recent threads have asked about qpid vs proton, and to a lot of us this
is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of qpid.
However we
I like the single list idea with subjects.
Carl.
On 01/18/2013 12:21 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
Hi Rafi,
You raise some good points, but I don't understand how keeping a separate
proton list makes it easier to provide a coherent view of the qpid project,
especially to newcomers.
As you point out:
The project goals/identity issue
in my
mind has very little to do with the lists and
On 01/18/2013 08:23 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
rearranging the project and actively communicating about its structure.
I quite agree. My suggestion to consolidate discussions to one list is
not an attempt to imply anything about
On 01/18/2013 06:55 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list.
Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the
users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that
committers may need to talk about but which the
Sounds good to me.
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 5:12 PM
To: us...@qpid.apache.org; pro...@qpid.apache.org; dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
On 01/18/2013 06:55 PM, Steve
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4541?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13557694#comment-13557694
]
Rajith Attapattu commented on QPID-4541:
The XA Session is using AUTO_ACK mode
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9027/
---
Review request for qpid, Robbie Gemmell, Weston Price, and Keith Wall.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9027/
---
(Updated Jan. 18, 2013, 10:54 p.m.)
Review request for qpid, Robbie Gemmell,
27 matches
Mail list logo
