james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joachim Draeger ...@joachim-draeger.de>
Subject Re: Roadmap again
Date Sat, 16 Dec 2006 09:53:40 GMT

Hi Bernd,

Am Samstag, den 16.12.2006, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:

> > its now about 4 weeks ago when Stefano and me posted a roadmap proposal
> > to the mailling list. Nothing concrete happen since this posting. I
> > really whould like to get this odd roadmap stuff done now to focus on
> > working on the next release. Without the roadmap it is impossible for me
> > to help the project and work on concrete things.
> > So what the stuff other people want to see in next release ? Is the
> > proposed stuff ok ?
> For the next release I would like to
> + have basic (whatever than means) IMAP stable, perfoming and
> functional, and well integrated with the rest of James architecture.

That would introduce probably some incompatibility. I'm fine with this
if there is a majority.
I always try to let the new stuff run beside the old one without
changing anything. I work this way only because I see it as problematic
in this project to introduce big changes. 

> + have more online management and monitoring features done

Yes, that is very important and will broaden significantly the target
Be transparent and less cryptic.

> + have a Spring distribution besides the other packages

Let's do it! :-)

> > I whould also like to focus on a branch date. Maybe branch in 2/2007  ?
> I would rather not call for a "branch date", but focus on "feature
> freeze" and "release" dates.
> Branching is just a technical thing which can be completely omitted if
> we release from trunk.

There seemed to be a consensus that the next release should be
config/storage compatible. This compatibility limits the introducing of
new features.
If we want to have a compatible release we IMO need the branch to be
able to work on non compatible features in trunk while stabilizing the
You seem to favor a non-compatible release. (So do I and some others
that saw the compatible one as a compromise)  
In this case I agree with you that we should continue working in trunk
and decide later whether a branch is needed or not. 

Well, as the last approach has been beaten down that unkind, (which
still makes me very sad) we need possibly a new vote for a direction.

James often makes the impression to me to be headless and indecisive.
That makes me feel unsure and uncomfortable if this is the right place
for my open source work. Too much energy gets wasted. For me this is
some kind of a last chance before I will draw the conclusions.

I appeal to the James community and to the PMC to make again all
assiduous efforts to come out of this mess. Something has to change
right now.

> And I would like to have us release from trunk, because it keeps us
> focused on testing and finalizing.
> Would a release target date end of Q2/Y07 be OK?

This is one of the options I can agree on. Because it's quite a long
period we could maybe introduce milestones. We are all voluntaries, no
one will force us to meet deadlines. 
But clear targets are important for humans. So yes, define a release
date, and maybe dates for alpha and beta releases. We are free to change
them whenever we think it's reasonable.


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

View raw message