First off, I'll start with a mea culpa. As one of the people who
picked up commons-email and moved it from commons-sandbox into
commons proper, and a committer on the Turbine project where commons-
email came from, I should have done a better job. My only excuse/
reason was some personal issues came up during my attempt to release
1.0 that pretty much shut down all my activity on OSS stuff.
However, at this point, I have "cleared the decks", and am ready to
get back into being active on the Jakarta Commons community. I'll
take a look at the updated list of changes, including the ones that
Siegfried sent me directly in an attempt to get some movement done!
IIRC, my big difficulty a couple months ago when trying to do the
release was I just switched to OSX, and didn't get the whole key
signing thing... I am at OSCON this week, if any other Commons
committers are there I bet we could do a bit of pair programming and
knock out updated RC and 1.0 this week...
Being as the code has sat for a while since the last 1.0 vote thread
passed months ago, I would do another RC first.
Eric
On Jul 28, 2005, at 11:01 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:34 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 22:25 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
it's rare that any initial release candidate survives scrutiny
from the
commons release maestros so i'm sure that an RC6 will have to be
rolled
anyway.
i'm just rolling the cuts for dion so i'd appreciate some
guidance on
this from those who know the code better. opinions?
From looking at the patch
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35881
this is a fairly significant change to the email API.
I think this is definitely something that should be done by the main
product maintainer, not someone just volunteering to roll RCs.
+1
I would suggest that either 1.0 go out without this change, or 1.0 be
delayed until the real email maintainer(s) have properly investigated
this, considered any backwards compatibility issues, etc.
i'm willing to let this one ride for a little while, i think. the
release candidate's only just out so there's no real reason why a
decision needs to be taken just yet.
And as Troy Poppe mentions, if 35881 is being considered for 1.0 then
perhaps 34056 should be as well.
+1
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
