On 3 April 2017 at 15:53, Keith W <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 March 2017 at 10:57, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 30 March 2017 at 12:32, Lorenz Quack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> +1 on the migration to git. > >> > >> Regarding the name of the broker's git repo: > >> * qpid-broker: I agree with others that this might lead to confusions > >> with the cpp broker. > >> * qpid-java-broker: I am worried that legal will not be happy with this > >> since Java is a trademark. See [1] and [2]. > >> * This leaves qpid-broker-for-java and qpid-broker-j. > >> Between those two I favour qpid-broker-for-java since that is what was > >> decided in [1]. I agree that it is a bit wordy but we won't have to > >> type it a lot and it is consistent with the other usages like > >> documentation and representation on the web page. > >> > >> > > So my view here is that "Qpid Broker for Java" is essentially the wrong > > name in every context :-) The fact that the Broker is written in Java is > > really incidental to its function and unless you are looking at deploying > > on a platform that doesn't support Java, it really shouldn't make any > > difference to an end user. personally I would have gone for qpidj-broker > or > > qpid-broker-j for the product name and the repo name. > > > I agree. I only wish we'd had the same thought a few months back when > the Qpid Broker for Java was named that way :) >
I think the naming is in some ways simpler now with the broker and client completely separated. Each can have a name which properly reflects their purpose since we don't have a single "for java" combined release. > > I prefer qpid-broker-j. My suggestion is that we adopt it for both > the new git repo name and the name of the product appearing in notice, > license files, documentation, website and maven metadata descriptions > etc. The Maven artefact names will be left unchanged. > > +1 from me :-) -- Rob > > > > > On the legal concerns, I don't see why the git repo name would be > different > > from a legal standpoint to the maven artefact names... if we believe that > > the git repo name is an issue then we should also be changing the maven > > names... and again I would think that "qpid-broker-for-java" would be a > > stupid maven artefact name too :-) > > > > -- Rob > > > > > >> Kind regards, > >> Lorenz > >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7341 > >> [2] http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Apache-Qpid-Java-naming-co > >> ncerns-td7648059.html > >> > >> > >> > >> On 30/03/17 11:12, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote: > >> > >>> +1 for migration from svn to git > >>> > >>> I would use qpid-java-broker as a name for the repo, as it is a bit > >>> shorter > >>> than qpid-broker-for-java. > >>> I'd also be Ok with 'qpid-broker-for-java' as a name for the repo. In > >>> general I prefer full names over the abbreviations or truncations of > the > >>> words. Mixing abbreviation with full words looks a bit unusual to me. > >>> Thus, > >>> I would vote against 'qpid-broker-j'. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards, > >>> Alex > >>> > >>> On 27 March 2017 at 14:15, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I like qpid-broker-j best of the alternatives proposed. I think > >>>> qpid-broker alone will cause a little confusion. > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Rob Godfrey <[email protected] > > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 27 March 2017 at 12:35, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 10:47, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]> > >>>>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 27 March 2017 at 11:31, Keith W <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now the Qpid Broker for Java and Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client are > >>>>>>>> separated [1]/[2], I'd like to propose the final two remaining > Qpid > >>>>>>>> components are migrated from SVN to GIT. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> * Qpid Broker for Java > >>>>>>>> * Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This will give us a consistent, Git based, version control > approach > >>>>>>>> across the whole project and therefore a simpler 'getting > involved' > >>>>>>>> story that should benefit the community as a whole. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The source code migration will maintain source code history, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> including > >>>> > >>>>> existing release branches and tags made since r1673693/QPID-6481 [3] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The intention would be for all future releases to be made from > git. > >>>>>>>> This would include any future maintenance releases from 6.0.x and > >>>>>>>> 6.1.x (which would remain combined broker/client releases). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Qpid Broker for Java: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Current SVN location: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/java/ > >>>>>>>> Proposed GIT repo: git://git.apache.org/qpid-broker > >>>>>>>> <http://git.apache.org/qpid-broker-for-java.git>-for-java.git > >>>>>>>> <http://git.apache.org/qpid-broker-for-java.git> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do we have to make the repo name quite so wordy? :-) git:// > >>>>>>> git.apache.org/qpid-broker.git would work for me. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The existing GIT mirror at git://git.apache.org/qpid-java.git > would > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> cease. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Qpid JMS AMQP 0-x Client: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Current SVN location: https://svn.apache.org/repos/ > >>>>>>>> asf/qpid/qpid-jms-amqp-0-x/ > >>>>>>>> Proposed GIT repo: git://git.apache.org/qpid-jms-amqp-0-x.git > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The existing GIT mirror at git://git.apache.org/qpid-jms- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> amqp-0-x.git > >>>> > >>>>> would become the 'live' repo.. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No objections on the client side, and OK on the broker side with > the > >>>>>>> proviso that I'd prefer a shorter repo name :-) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- Rob > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [1] http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Drop-the-AMQP-0-x- > >>>>>>>> client-from-the-Qpid-for-Java-7-0-release-td7657770.html > >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7622 > >>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-6481 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm also not hugely fond of 'qpid-broker-for-java' as a repo name. > >>>>>> Using only 'qpid-broker' doesn't necessarily do a great job of > >>>>>> signalling which broker it contains, though the contents would make > it > >>>>>> pretty obvious and seeing that the cpp broker is in 'qpid-cpp' isn't > >>>>>> much of a stretch or that surprising (particularly as its been > there a > >>>>>> while now, and I doubt we will separate those bits further). Adding > >>>>>> '-j' might be another option though. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The above was literally my reasoning as I considered what name I > would > >>>>> > >>>> give > >>>> > >>>>> it... I'd also be happy with qpid-broker-j however that's not what we > >>>>> > >>>> call > >>>> > >>>>> it in maven, etc (though I wouldn't be hugely upset to rename it > >>>>> consistently). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Regardless which of these its called, happy to proceed and will be > >>>>>> glad to see them moved to git. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 > >>>>> > >>>>> -- Rob > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Side note, git.apache.org doesn't actually hold the live repos, just > >>>>>> mirrors. The actual writable repos would be at > >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/<name>.git > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Robbie > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > >>>>>> 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] > >
