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: Type of next release
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:30:52 GMT
Hi Noel,

Am Sonntag, den 17.12.2006, 20:09 -0500 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> Joachim Draeger wrote:
> > 1. Backport features from trunk to 2.3 branch (AKA next-minor)
> > 2. Create a config/storage compatible release from trunk (AKA next-major)
> > 3. Work on a non-compatible release from trunk (AKA next-greater)
> Why only one?
> We should (and should have already) released v2.3.1 with the changes that I
> wanted to make to fix the defect, and to add one other change (the per-IP
> connections, which is really quite helpful).  

Sorry I don't know which defect you are talking about. 
If you think it is that important, why are you not trying to find a
Norman just gave me the hint on IM that you propably talk about 
 r470929 (JAMES-592) James leaks memory slowly.
It doesn't seem to me that there is no agreement possible. 
But the differences of opinion just seem to address HOW the problem
should been fixed not IF.
So please don't mix up this unfinished discussion with release issues.

Reanimate the discussion and try to get more people involved by
summarizing the problem. I guess no one will veto a majority decision. 
Everyone is willing to work on a bug fix release for 2.3. 

> And this ought to be done by
> renaming the v2.3 branch.  If we really need the original v2.3.0 code back,
> we can copy the tag again.

That is a trivial minor workflow decision which does not block anything.

> Do people really want to argue over 2.3.1 vs 2.4 because some minor feature
> is added?

No. It just seems that no one wants to invest his time. If someone will
do the work, great! 
At the moment there is not even a roadmap draft for that direction. 
If you think you'll have enough man-power to bring a feature release
based on 2.3 out of the door, just go on. No one will work against you.

> As for branching from trunk, I agree with you.  We don't need to copy trunk
> unless we have problems with people working on things in trunk that are in
> opposition to trying to make trunk reliable and stable. 

No, no one here works in opposition to trying to make trunk reliable and
stable. Everyone wants to make James a great product.


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

View raw message