james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bernd Fondermann" <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: LONG JAMES v2.4 Road Map
Date Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:58:05 GMT
On 9/15/06, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> >> Bernd, this was by no means to be understood as an offense or anything
> >> against other active contributors on this project. This List is neither
> >> complete nor a concrete suggestion. Replace the Names in the Lists with
> >> A, B, C, and D.
> >
> > -1. Not agreed. I favor all the committers working together on the
> > current release. We don't want to split the community up. Other
> > projects here at Apache are in deep, deep trouble just because of
> > this!
> I've proposed the "next-minor"/"next-major" because I don't see it as a
> split. It is simply a group of people that put efforts to consolidate
> some of the features we have in trunk, while new work in trunk is being
> done.

I am jumping on the expression "be responsible for" (which has been
cut out by me).
It sounds to me like a project manager's assignment. Please, let's not
split responsability.

> Imho the 2 active trees rule we agreed in past is still valid: trunk is
> always the main active tree. We're waiting to close 2.3 so the
> next-minor can be started and only when next-minor will be closed we're
> going to open the next-major release.

Agreed. I like sandboxes, I like 2.3 branch, I like trunk. I am fine
with all that.

> Furthermore, I already wrote that the "split" could give our users the
> best results (3 releases in 6 months!!) and let everyone work on the
> preferred tree.

I am very much in doubt that those 2 additional releases will be
possible or at least are honest goals. And if they would become
reality, I am fearing it would become impossible to merge branches

What makes me suddenly think that people want to accelerate
development and releases like mad when some month ago they didn't care
much about releasing at all?
(That said when the 2.3 release is not even through the door.)

Let's at first work together on trunk and then decide to release (when
time is due but quite soon).
If there are developments which are not completed, ok. Lets disable
them, or mark them as experimental, but release what we have. Then,
let's move on.
I am not opposing doing larger refactorings, or maybe even break
features for a limited time. But let's move forward carefully

> >> So do we/you want to deliver standards, or do you want to chase them?
> >
> > Is that related to IMAP? Hopefully, this will be added soon.
> Unfortunately I guess that IMAP won't be included in next-minor or
> next-major, but we can only expect to be able to do some steps in that 2
> releases (it would be *really* cool if we were able to put experimental
> unstable support for imap in next-major but this is not realistic to me).

Yes, seems so.


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

View raw message