james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bernd Fondermann" <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Type of next release
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:42:08 GMT
On 12/19/06, Norman Maurer <nm@byteaction.de> wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman schrieb:
> > Joachim Draeger wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Noel J. Bergman:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >
> > The memory leak is the main thing, plus I wanted to backport the per-IP
> > connection code.  I have already done that privately, and have been running
> > with those changes since the day I posted the fix.  JAMES, which used to
> > crash weekly, hasn't been restarted since the fix went in.
> >
> Thats the point.. "You" want to backport. Why not ask the others if they
> want to backport before we dedicide. Thats why i start the VOTE. I think
> Bernd suggest the right thing.. We should vote for every backport.

... and later...

> Again, i will try to help with 2.3.1. But im against commiting new
> features in the 2.3 branch. If we want to have new features out we
> should replace 2.3.1 with next-minor... IMHO 2.3.1 is a bugfix release
> and nothing more.

just to clarify: IMO, yes, a bugfix release should be a very carefull
selection (voting required) of small backports and have a name very
close to 2.3 (2.3.1).
That does not at all mean I am against evolving 2.3 into 2.4. if
people work on it, get it stable and done, and receive a majority of 3
+1's it is a release, as per the ASF rules. I really would not like to
get in peoples way if they do reasonable things.

If the 2.3 branch is used for this or that or a new branch is opened
is only a technical matter, not about process. Technically, we can
easily open new svn branches as we like, for 2.3.1, 2.4 and 3.0. For
the process though, I would like all people to work on trunk, because
only that helps us get a common understanding how good trunk _really_
is and learn how to reasonable work together.


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

View raw message