Matthias,<div><br></div><div>I'm kind of confused about your point. �Ubuntu isn't even beyond the 1.8 series and it's likely one of the most heavily used production distributions of rabbitmq.</div><div><br></div>
<div>I don't know why there's pushback on this. �Everybody who responded to this thread who uses Mac was +1 for simply including Homebrew in your documentation.</div><div><br></div><div>Do whatever you want.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Adam<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Matthias Radestock <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthias@rabbitmq.com">matthias@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Adam,<div class="im"><br>
<br>
Adam Nelson wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The homebrew rabbitmq installation already exists and is maintained. <br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Who is maintaining it? For all official rabbit distributions which we do not maintain directly ourselves we know the individuals who maintain them and liaise with them for new releases, resolution of any problems reported to them about rabbit vs to us about their packaging, etc.<br>
<br>
Also, note that the rabbitmq formula is still stuck at version 2.0.0 nine days after 2.1.0 was released. And 2.0.0 itself took 13 days to appear. Now, to me 13 days seems quite ok, but what kind of turnaround do homebrew users generally expect? Contrast this, for example, with the latest release of Erlang/OTP, which came out on the same day as rabbit 2.1.0 and only took three days to appear in homebrew.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Matthias.<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Adam<br>
</div>