james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: JAMES 3.0 Milestone 1 or Alpha?
Date Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:04:06 GMT
Toni Lamar ha scritto:
> Stefano Bagnara-2 wrote:
>> Unfortunately there hasn't been consensus on branching to start a
>> release process from the trunk (in december) and the code didn't change
>> to much in the mean time, so I don't think we can expect something
>> different now.
>>
> But why a branch? Woudn't a tag be enough? I mean in the case of a Milestone
> 1.
> This would be just a little more than the nightly build, than later more one
> tag for M2, an so on.

This may be an alternative approach. However I think that branching is
better any time you want to manage a release. Btw I'm fine with tagging
and releasing an M1 from current code (we did this for 2.3.0a1, IIRC): I
just think that Robert should tell us the better moment wrt him IMAP
work. And maybe we could even release a 3.0M1 without IMAP enabled by
default.

> Stefano Bagnara-2 wrote:
>> Unfortunately, as far as I understand it currently no one of the active
>> committers is willing to prepare a release from the current code (and to
>> collect agreements for this).
>>
> But isn't the entire process automated?
> I mean it already runs nightly. It would be only required to stick a 3.0M1
> label, tag that version and publish on the main site the collected JIRA
> changes (there's a plug-in that does that automatically).

Yes, but at Apache releasing means something more than building: we have
to take care of any legal issue with code we release and we have to vote
and agree on the number and the date. I know this seems to be some easy
stuff, but in my experience it isn't.

> Stefano Bagnara-2 wrote:
>> So I think that if every user using/wanting trunk code to be released
>> will put a list of new trunk features he is interested in and what
>> features he is already using (testing) succesfully from trunk this could
>> help the inactive PMC members to understand the quality and stability
>> and usability of what we have in trunk.
>>
> Sorry but shoudn't be this reversed? I.e. developers to convince users about
> the stability of their project and the importance to use it?

LOL, you are right. Unfortunately I don't have any tool to convince
others that the code in trunk was not so bad and not stable as Noel (or
anyone else) thought.

> If "inactive" members are such a bottleneck for the project(considering the
> overused veto right), why don't they simply quit? Is it so important for
> them that "membership"? 

ASF meritocracy: you gain some right, you deserve them forever.

I think this is ok. It is ok that people that dedicated years to some
project will keep vote rights for the future: as I think that my
opinions/votes should be taken in considerations also after an year of
inactivity. We all collect experience on this project: every "expert"
opinion is important.

The problem in JAMES has been that we didn't/don't understand what each
one want: someone thinks I didn't compromise enough and I didn't listen
to other opinions, strictly pushing only my goals. I never
accepted/liked to be guilty for this, so I can simply tell I don't think
I am/was the problem but I cannot ignore them as there are rules (and
I'm happy there are rules).

I think the only solution will come from the community: your message is
an help. Other users/developers could try helping, too.

What there is in trunk is really not important compared to the
community: we need again an active/live community, then we can discuss
about trunk and how to release.

I really can't (and don't want to) push anything anymore.

> Thanks,
> 
> Toni.

Thank you, and sorry if this doesn't help with the release you asked for.

Stefano


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