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 Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:04:04 GMT
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Danny Angus wrote:
>> Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>>> Sorry I don't understand this message. I understood we defined the
>>> following:
>>> 2.3.1 - bug fix release: we simply fix bugs in v2.3 branch and will
>>> release something if needed (the unbounded cache and the connection
>>> accepting problem are good candidate to decide we need it).
> I doubt that we'll ever do this, since it would be subsumed by:

Well, I believe in you, but I also know that you are the only supporter 
of the "next-minor" and you are so busy that you have to vote on the 
"James Server future releases/road maps" vote I started in October the 
25th. So I think it is safer for the project if we keep open the way to 
a 2.3.1 in case you'll be busier than you think now and we have to 
cancel next-minor.

>>> next-minor: the release you said you want to work and that will be based
>>> on 2.3 branch (but not the 2.3 branch itself) and you want to backport
>>> things from trunk (to be released in 1-2 months).
> which is what I'm working on.  And of course it would be from the v2.3
> branch, which is why it still exists.  So far the list includes:
>   - removal of InetAddress cache
>   - connection accepting fix
>   - per IP connection enhancement
> The latter two are pending Norman's changes for the last, since those files
> are identical between v2.3 and trunk.

As you are the only active supporter of this next-minor release you're 
almost free to do everything you want preparing the next-minor proposal, 
but please work in the "next-minor" branch and not in the "v2.3" branch.

The doubts you later expose about "next-major" are the same doubts I 
have about your next-minor: I understood you want handlerapi-v2 in 
"next-minor" and it will be an hard task to complete that branch and 
consolidate it to be released in a month or 2. Believe me: I will be 
really happy if you do this, because it is the bigger missing piece for 

>>> next-major: the release we are currently preparing on trunk and that
>>> we'll branch soon (in 1-2 months).
> I doubt that timeframe, but timeframe is irrelevant.
> 	--- Noel

Well, I think timeframe is a key part of the next-major release, and 
we'll probably postpone some of the feature expected to be in next-major 
if they are not ready for the estimated branch time. This is my current 
feeling about this issue, but we'll of course discuss together the issue 
  in the first weeks of december.
"next-major" had a lot of supporter in the vote I discussed above, so I 
expect a lot of effort to make that real in the estimated timeframe.

That said, let's keep working, we all have a lot to do in our branches 
:-) and it is really cool to see so much different authors in the commit 


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

View raw message