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: Next 2.x release
Date Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:48:20 GMT
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> I simply said that I think [that] this is a new feature/improvement and
>> can't be backported to 2.3 for the 2.3.1 release. If, instead, you was
>> already talking about "next-minor" then I agree you can backport it
> +1


> This is just the silly nomenclature problem.  Next Minor should be v2.4,
> since v2.3.x would be just a v2.3 bug fix.  Next Major should be v3.0.  But
> since we haven't agreed on the version names, we're constantly running afoul
> of them.

Yes, nomenclature problem: "should" is not "will be".
Imho next-major could even be 2.4 or 2.5 ;-) and we really can't know 
this until we'll branch, discuss, vote for it.

But this time the problem is not only nomenclature, it is that you mixed 
2.3.1 and next-minor. See bottom...

>> please create a next-minor branch starting from the v2.3 branch
>> and backport the code there and not on the 2.3 branch.
> The v2.3 branch *is* the next minor branch.  We have no need for another.
> If, for some reason, we need just a bug fix branch, we can copy from the tag
> for 2.3.0.  I can rename the branch if it makes you happier.  I had planned
> to do that earlier, but we can't agree on the names.
> 	--- Noel

No, please! v2.3 branch is for 2.3.1 and we should backport there only 
bugfixes. There is already need for the v2.3 branch to be separated by 
the next-minor branch because the accept and unbounded cache fixes can 
be included in v2.3 branch while the per service/per ip connection limit 
can be only committed to the next-minor branch.

If you started working on next-minor please create a next-minor branch 
and work there. next-minor is not v2.3, is simply a new branch based on 
what we have in v2.3.

So don't rename the branch. v2.3 is there because we already have 
backported bugs and we may want to release a 2.3.1 from there. If you're 
ready to work on next-minor create a new branch and work there. This is 
what we agreed.

simply use "next-minor" as the branch name: there is no need to have an 
agreement on version when we already had at least an agreement on the label.

Maybe we decide not to release 2.3.1 and simply release "next-minor" as 
2.4.0, or maybe we decide to release a 2.3.1 in a month and release 
"next-major" later if we decide not to release "next-minor". We can't 
make many plans on next-minor because you are the only one that wanted 
to work on it, and you never wrote what exactly you intend to backport 
from trunk to next-minor. I think that no one but you have understood 
what you're planning for next-minor ;-)


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

View raw message