Whilst the recommendation is clearly not what is being used, how much of an issue is this? It doesnt seem to be a hard requirement for example.
I wonder if the disruption caused from changing it after ~6 years and dealing with any resulting confusion actually outweighs the benefits of it being as recommended. On 2 March 2018 at 16:18, Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com> wrote: > The proton ruby gem and package are incorrectly named according to the > standard gem naming rules, see > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-1760 for details. > > The short story is we want to change the name from "qpid_proton" to > "qpid-proton" for the next release (0.22, not the 0.21 release in progress) > > The impact is that code using the package would need to change lines > `require 'qpid_proton'` to `require 'qpid-proton'`. It's annoying, but it > seems best to get it right as quickly as possible. > > The plan is be to leave the "qpid_proton" gem available, but stalled at > version 0.21. Code using the "qpid_proton" gem won't break but to avail of > future updates you'll need to switch to using the "qpid-proton" gem > instead. If you're using ruby from a downloaded source package or git clone > you'll need to update your code to use the 0.22 release. > > I'll make the change next week - I want to make it early in the release > cycle so we have time to find and iron out problems. If anyone has > questions, problems or suggestions about how to make the transition > smoother please respond to the list or comment on the JIRA > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-1760 > > Cheers, > Alan. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
