james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: 2.3 Beta 2 milestone?
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:04:36 GMT
I almost agree with Bernd.

I would like to add that here
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
we have 4 unresolved issues.

Before we make an RC1 we should have fixed all the known issues or moved 
them to 2.4.

I also don't think that the default use of db and file we have now is 
the best thing.

We have *dbfile* for inbox and spool repositories.
We have *file* for default repository destinations (see ToRepository mailet)
We have *file* for the outgoing spool repository.

Imho we should move to dbfile everything if we decide to have that as 
the default.

I don't like having the main spool as dbfile and outgoing as file.


My vote is +1 to move everything to file, db or dbfile.

I don't have a specific preference for one of them.
I use db only but it has problems with very big file.
Maybe new users would understand better the file only or db only than 
dbfile (dbfile is harder to manage at hand)
Maybe dbfile is the best compromise between performance and stability 
(maybe we should confirm this using Postage)

About the open issues I could accept an RC release with only  	JAMES-432 
open.

Imho JAMES-302 could be closed as "won't fix" or moved to 2.4.

For JAMES-496 I would backport the change from trunk and I would remove 
the whole handlerchain configuration from the default config.xml. I 
would prefer to have an additional sample config.xml to show the chain 
features or a documentation page but I would like to have a cleaner 
config.xml with no reference to the handlerchain (that I would like to 
change for 2.4 without having to worry about backward compatibility)

Stefano

Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> +0 for cutting a beta2, had no time to evaluate my 3-day test run
> results yet and 1 or 2 runs are still to pending.
> 
> I'd like to have us decide on the TEMPORARY DEFAULT configuration
> before having a RC.
> Because I suppose a fair amount of users are using the default config
> and it can be seen as a recommended way to run the server, it could be
> problematic to change it from a tested RC to release.
> 
>  Bernd
> 
> On 6/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
>> If you run
>>
>>   svn log -r HEAD:409032
>>
>> you will see what has changed since we put out beta 1.  I think that 
>> we are
>> in good shape to put out beta 2.  I don't know if anyone wants to call it
>> release candidate 1 or not.
>>
>> I'd like to post the next milestone before leaving for Europe on 
>> Monday, so
>> this is a call for comments.  Any more changes coming?
>>
>>         --- Noel
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
> 
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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