Hello Keith, Yes, it is very good news for us.
Thank you, Rabih On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Keith W <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rabih, > > We've been having some further discussions and have decided to alter > course. We now plan to put out QPID-7558 as a defect release on the > 6.1 line. This will be 6.1.2. I'd hope to to have the release public > before the end of the month. Would this be useful to you? Please let > me know. > > Kind regards, > > Keith. > > > > > > On 2 February 2017 at 17:34, Keith W <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Rabih > > > > Whilst the initial work to backport this one patch would be trivial, > > unfortunately the overhead of maintaining the extra code line is not. > > The team we have working at "Qpid Broker for Java/0-x client" is > > completely focused on the v7.0 work right now (mainly AMQP 1.0 > > implementation improvements), and I don't have the spare capacity to > > produce a 6.2.0. The overhead for a single enhancement is simple too > > much. > > > > I will attach a patch to QPID-7558 (first thing tomorrow) that will > > apply cleanly to 6.1.x, allowing you to simply checkout/build your > > own. > > > > I will keep this under review. If v7.0 slips from its estimated > > delivery date, or it makes sense to release other features early in a > > v6.2, QPID-7558 will be included too. > > > > Hope this makes sense to you. Kind regards, Keith. > > > > > > On 2 February 2017 at 13:43, Rabih M <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> Thank you for your answers. > >> We would appreciate if we could have minor version including this > feature > >> (if it is easy to back-port of course) because we already a use case to > >> implement that requires this feature. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Rabih > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> On 1 February 2017 at 18:37, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > If it was considered for back port then it seems a 6.2.0 would be > >>> > better if sticking to a strict semver format, though I wouldn't > overly > >>> > mind if it was just included in a 6.1.2 with any intended bugfixes > >>> > either if folks really didn't want to have a 6.2.x a couple months > >>> > before doing 7.0.0, though I don't see a huge issue with that > >>> > personally. I also don't think it would be unreasonable to tell > anyone > >>> > that since such a 6.2.x series would be so similar to 6.1.x, renamed > >>> > only on semver grounds for a fairly isolated feature many folks wont > >>> > touch, that there won't be any more 6.1.x releases to cut down on the > >>> > overhead of maintaining two almost identical release branches. > >>> > > >>> > I guess the main thing is really how much work it is to back port it, > >>> > which I can't say I know. > >>> > > >>> > >>> I think the work to backport from trunk to a branch from 6.1.x should > be > >>> pretty trivial. In terms of versioning, I'm probably more "liberal" in > >>> what I would allow in a 6.1.2 release than others would be, though > given > >>> that this essentially adds (in a compatible manner) to the (REST) API > >>> around the JDBC virtualhost(node), I can see why we would want this to > be a > >>> 6.2. > >>> > >>> Fundamentally using semantic versioning is supposed to help the user > base, > >>> if by using it we hold off on releasing a feature that is useful to our > >>> userbase because it means that we worry about having too many > versions, it > >>> feels like we are doing something wrong. > >>> > >>> (I hate myself for suggesting this, but one *horrible* way of avoiding > a > >>> 6.2 while still adding the feature to 6.x is, I guess, simply not > making > >>> the attribute "managed" in 6.1.x, just using the context variable for > the > >>> prefix... so it can be changed by setting the context variable, but > there > >>> is no change in the API) > >>> > >>> -- Rob > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > Robbie > >>> > > >>> > On 1 February 2017 at 15:17, Lorenz Quack <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > Hello Rabih, > >>> > > > >>> > > Unfortunately, the v7 release is still a couple of months away. > >>> > > Out of curiosity, what is your time-line for when you would like > this > >>> > > feature to land? > >>> > > > >>> > > We were considering back porting this but there are currently no > plans > >>> > for a > >>> > > 6.2.0 release and as a new feature this is not really fit for a > bug fix > >>> > > release (i.e. 6.1.2). > >>> > > Our limited resources are currently focused on v7 but it does > involve a > >>> > fair > >>> > > amount of work. > >>> > > > >>> > > Sorry that this is probably not he answer you were hoping for. > >>> > > > >>> > > Kind regards, > >>> > > Lorenz > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > On 01/02/17 14:35, Rabih M wrote: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Hello, > >>> > >> > >>> > >> The question is in the title. > >>> > >> I am asking because we are interested in > >>> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7558 > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Best regards, > >>> > >> Rabih > >>> > >> > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > >>> > > 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] > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
