james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Hoffmann ...@byteaction.de>
Subject AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:54:42 GMT
Hi Vincenzo,

reading your mail, I was wondering what the difference between a minor and a
major feature might be? Who sets the bar, who makes the decision? Who is
responsible to put the branch feature into trunk? IMHO it should be the other
way around. 

- New Features into Trunk
- Bugfixes into the Release Branch of 2.3
- ported Features of Trunk that should be incorporated into the 2.3 codebase
should be done into a new branch with the name 2.4

That way everything is clean, everyone looking at the repository gets an idea
of how the project is structured.

Question at hand is, how quick you want bugfixes to be released. If you
introduce features into the Release Branch, you maneuver yourself into a
one-way-street. You might introduce features that are not well-tested, and
that must be released with the critical bugfix that has to be fixed and
released.

I hope I was able to bring my point across...

Kind regards

Juergen

-----Urspr├╝ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini [mailto:vincenzo.gianferraripini@praxis.it] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Dezember 2006 10:48
An: James Developers List
Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Norman Maurer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> i start this vote because i want to get an idea what other developers
> think about this. Here are the possible solutions:
>
> 1) Commit fixes and new "minor" features to 2.3 branch:
>
>
>   
+1.

My point is: we need fixes plus minor features applied to code branch 
that we can consider stable and safe, being used by most (I suppose) 
people (the ones that have started to use 2.3.0). So let's try to do it, 
with the goal of cutting a release quite soon, and limiting the new 
minor features that we can consider really "minor".
When we cut it we vote on changing the name to 2.4.0 if there are *not 
only* fixes (and I would vote +1 to such name change).
In other words, let's keep only one branch other than trunk and let's 
work on both. And the current 2.3 branch is already "next-minor" (we may 
already rename it for clarity).
The idea is that whatever goes into the 2.3/2.4/next-minor branch is 
aimed to maximum stability and compatibility, and if something is not so 
safe it *must* be optional and documented as such.

Moreover, I think that we are responsible enough to evaluate (the 
unfortunately few of us that will do them) if a minor feature is really 
low risk and could go into this branch, so I think that lazy consensus 
is much better than voting every time. And for such minor stuff a road 
map is bureaucracy. Next minor is

Finally, let's avoid religion wars around names :-) , and let's avoid 
becoming like the Italian Parliament these days  ;-) .
>
> 2) Commit only bugfixes to 2.3 branch:
>
>
>   
-0
> So please cast your votes and tell me what you prefer.
>
> bye
> Norman
>
>
>
>   
Vincenzo


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

!EXCUBATOR:1,458a588344674840514886!



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