Skip to content

Removing the ApiGen project. #877

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

stebet
Copy link
Contributor

@stebet stebet commented Jun 19, 2020

Proposed Changes

Removes the ApiGen project and brings code into separate files (resolves #742)
Style cleanups to make code more uniform.
Simplified AMQP Class-Method parsing and handling.

Types of Changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes issue Re-consider per-build AMQP API generation #742)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause an observable behavior change in existing systems)
  • Documentation improvements (corrections, new content, etc)
  • Cosmetic change (whitespace, formatting, etc)

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
  • I have signed the CA (see https://cla.pivotal.io/sign/rabbitmq)
  • All tests pass locally with my changes
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in related repositories

Cleaning up code and structure for simplification.
@michaelklishin
Copy link
Contributor

@stebet thank you for your ongoing contributions. FYI we may or may not have a chance to get to this till mid-next week.

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Contributor

@stebet can you please rebase this on top of master?

@bollhals
Copy link
Contributor

Is this something that we consider doing? I might be able to take a look on that if you want.

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Contributor

@bollhals yes, we have agreed that the generation part arguably takes more time to maintain than it saves. The protocol doesn't change very often.

@bollhals bollhals mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2020
11 tasks
@stebet
Copy link
Contributor Author

stebet commented Aug 13, 2020

Currently working on a rebase of the full-async branch. It's a bit time consuming but I should get it done in the next days. Ramping productivity back up after summer vacations ;)

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Contributor

I assume #924 supersedes this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants