james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bernd Fondermann <bf_...@brainlounge.de>
Subject Re: Project status and perception
Date Wed, 13 May 2009 13:45:52 GMT
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Bernd Fondermann <bf_jak@brainlounge.de> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> "Contribution" covers everything from installing, running and reporting
>> test results to bug reports, documentation patches, code patches.
>>
>> Today I contributed a patch to another Apache project I never
>> contributed to before. The patch was utterly trivial: One word changed
>> in a toString() method. It was created in less than 5 minutes. The patch
>> was applied within less than 10 minutes!
>>
>> What I want to say by this is: It doesn't take much to make a difference
>> on an open source project. The borders between user, contributor and
>> committer are floating.
> 
> +1
> 
>> I can understand why people are frustrated. I am, too.
>> It's because something has changed within the last couple of month:
>> Three committers who were heavily using James on a daily basis moved on.
>> They were first hand testers of TRUNK.
>>
>> Instead, at the moment, TRUNK is largely untested. So nobody knows
>> exactly how good it really is (or they don't report here).
>>
>> So if the community asks for a milestone release, we all must be aware
>> of the fact that we then need to do actual testing on the released
>> software. Otherwise, releasing a milestone serves no real purpose. So
>> others need to jump in and test.
> 
> +1
> 
> one of the conflicts is that james is both a final user application
> and an extensible platform for developing mail applications
> 
> for users who are interested just in a plain mail application then
> avalon-phoenix shouldn't be a problem. it works well and has been well
> tested in production. 2.3.x really is the right choice.
> 
> the avalon-phoenix framework has major issues as a development
> platform.  most developers prefer spring. the 3.x version is the right
> choice for developers looking to extend james.
> 
> most of the developers who remain active are interested in developing
> mail applications rather than creating and maintaining a basic user
> email application.
> 
> IMHO both codebases are just too big for new developers. i would
> prefer lots of smaller, more accessible libraries from which the two
> versions are build.
> 
> if people aren't willing to contribute to testing 3.0 then one option
> would be to think about 2.x as the stable, user application and 3.x as
> the extensible developer version. it should be possible to extend
> 2.x's lifespan by factoring out libraries from 3.x to replace code in
> 2.x. avalon-pheonix support could then be dropped from 3.0.

+1 (insightful)

  Bernd


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