On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
confusion with proton.
I agree and was not suggesting that it was. I do however think that had
past conversations on both the proton and dev lists been more visible
then the
On 01/21/2013 01:14 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially
just
adjust how we use them slightly.
That is fine with me. I'm really just hoping to nudge more of the
conversation emails onto the
On 21 January 2013 12:43, Robbie Gemmell robbie.gemm...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm happy enough with the idea of collapsing proton@ given that Protons
scope is in some ways wider than when it started out (where the very
specific protocol library made a good case for a separate list), but I
don't
On 21 January 2013 13:14, Gordon Sim gordon.r@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
confusion with proton.
I agree and was not suggesting that it was.
Sorry, I didnt really mean to imply
I'm going to suggest that we leave all the lists in place for now, and
leave the choice of list to individual discretion.
For my part however I will be focusing on the user list, which I see as
a community wide list for anyone with an interest at AMQP related
software at Apache. I would
It's really about architecture and audience and how they interact. The
architecture we are currently developing is closely modelled on the
existing architecture of the internet. At the lowest layer the TCP stack
provides a very general purpose protocol to a very wide range of
applications. This is
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Gordon Sim g...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/21/2013 05:22 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
The users of a piece of software inherently shape its
direction, and forcing two pieces of software that need to be quite
independent to have a single user group is going to
On 01/21/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the level
of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design goal
behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've described
has motivated many
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Gordon Sim g...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/21/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the
level
of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design
goal
behind AMQP 1.0 since
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
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
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
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; proton@qpid.apache.org; d...@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
On 01/18/2013 06:55 PM, Steve
19 matches
Mail list logo
