james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bernd Fondermann <bf_...@brainlounge.de>
Subject Re: "votes" for next 2.3 release
Date Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:34:03 GMT
A release is overdue, releasing means to finalize and closing issues, 
not to open up new issues on branch2.3. It is not clear to me, what 
branch2.3 is all about anyway, if not applying only bug fixes and 
releasing betas and RCs from it.

Is this something like a last call or intended to go on forever, 
eventually releasing never anything?

I would recommend to first apply patches against TRUNK and merge with 
branch2.3 only when they appear to be stable.

more inline...

Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> I hope we don't need a single vote for every single issue, so please 
> help with short and clear "vote like" answers to the points (I prefer a 
> clear -1 than a long discussion: at least with a -1 we don't delay the 
> next release).
> 
> --- Add a default hardcoded configuration for the SMTPHandlerChain
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-496
> 
> +1 to apply it
> (I would also like to remove the default handlerchain configuration from 
> the default config.xml and maybe add it to a commented complete config.xml)

-0 (appears to be a large patch and no bugfix)

> 
> --- Decide what to do with repository implementations configured by 
> default (db/dbfile/file)
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-536
> 
> I think we should put dbfile by default in the advanced config, but use 
> db or file by default in the default config.xml. I have no real 
> preference between the 2. I use db, but I think that most "first time" 
> users would better understand the file repositories.

+1 for FILE

> 
> --- Remove RepositoryManager and cornerstone-store-impl
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-515
> 
> +1 to remove it (backport the trunk change)
> (Bernd already replied against this, but it is not clear to me wether it 
> was a -0 or a -1, so please cast a veto if you think it is needed, 
> otherwise we can count the votes: please don't answer that we should 
> decide the real plan because I don't believe we can actively discuss 
> about what is alpha/beta/rc and what should teoretically be included in 
> the branch. I really prefear e real vote on a real issue. We don't have 
> a generic rule but at least we know if we agreed to include it or not).

-0 (is a clean up and thus is no improvement for code due to be released)

> 
> --- Functionality of DNSServer.getByName(String) is not symetric to 
> java.net.InetAddress.getByName(String)
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-302
> 
> I would like to move this out from the 2.3 roadmap (2.4). We'll discuss 
> wether to include this or not in 2.4/3.0 later.

+1

> 
> --- Once we'll have decided what to include and included it we are ready 
> for the next release. Do we want to call it 2.3.0b2 or 2.3.0rc1 ?
> 
> here is my vote:
> +1 for 2.3.0b2
> +0 for 2.3.0rc1

+1 for b2, if JAMES-496 and -515 are applied to branch2.3
+1 for rc1, if JAMES-496 and -515 are not applied to branch2.3

   Bernd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message