james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini <vincenzo.gianferrarip...@praxis.it>
Subject Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:32:41 GMT
You are right. Let's then create a 2.4 branch from 2.3, so some work can 
be done. In my case, being very busy, I unfortunately cannot work too 
much, but in the very short time I can work on two or three things that 
can make it for 2.4.

And obviously, as correctly said many times by Stefano, I would work on 
trunk and backport it, as for they very nature they are easy to 
backport. And there may be other "tactical" but useful things that can 
be done for 2.4.
The only really wrong thing would be adding fixes and new 
functionalities to  2.3 or 2.4 or next minor and not to trunk! This 
would look like an old story that we "old guys" remember.


Joachim Draeger wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 21.12.2006, 16:03 +0100 schrieb Vincenzo Gianferrari
> Pini:
>>> - 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.
>> Agree, but at the same time having three branches is hard to mantain (we 
>> know that from the past history of James), so what I think is worth is 
>> to all of us be more *flexible and pragmatic*.
> And we should be open for *compromises*. It just seems that James PMC
> and community are unable to make widely accepted decisions at the moment
> and it seems that this state will continue. 
> Crucial votes, maybe even with vetos, will bring us nothing. Discussion
> will just come up again and prevent us from moving forward.
> Having three branches will be better than discussing for ever and just
> doing nothing.
> There is a group that doesn't want to work on next minor. Not because it
> is not a desirable goal. They want to concentrate on new features in
> trunk and bugfixes for 2.3. I think this won't change. 
> Some think that we need a bugfix only branch of 2.3 to be able to
> release it at any time. A backported feature probably needs more time to
> test.
> Even if it may be cumbersome and inconvenient: The three branches
> strategy may be the only possible compromise to enable everyone to
> work. 
> Of course working on a common goal would be much better. But this way is
> better than doing nothing.
> I don't care whether 2.3 based release will use CTR or RTC. But I think
> setting up a roadmap is needed to make the community to understand the
> goal. It will also make it easier for people to get involved.
> Joachim
> P.S.: I announced a vote for today. Sorry, I don't think we are that far
> right now.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

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

View raw message