Hi, * Sander Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-11 20:06:54]:
> Maxime, folks,
>
> On Dec 11, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
>
> > I'm not yet used to release management (even for a small module like
> > mod_mbox), so I'll be very pleased to get some feedback, comments and
> > pointers if we decide to make a 0.2 release for mod_mbox !
>
> Good idea: releasing the code in packaged form should encourage its use.
>
> The main aspect of Release Management is (all IMHO of course) making
> an informed judgement of whether the current code base is "good
> enough" to release. This includes data points like:
>
> * It's been running on mail-archives.apache.org with fewer than X
> cores (with X tending to 0)
I don't know if I'm able to check this point on my own : where do
coredumps go ? Do I have enough access rights to check for them ?
Anyway, since my last fixes against core dumps, you did not report any
of them.
> * It can be built against httpd release 2.{0,2}.y without
> modifications to either httpd, mod_mbox source code or build files
We got this point.
> * There is documentation that allows a user (as opposed to the
> person who wrote the code) to install it and get started serving
> mail archives
Documentation is currently inexistant, but if we choose to make a
mod_mbox release, I could do it in the next few hours. I still have my
.xml file from my last failed attempt on providing documentation (it
was rejected because mod_mbox was not part of the main distribution).
> * There are Z number of open bugs in Bugzilla against the module and
> T of those need to be fixed before we can release, while U of them
> can be waived
Altough ASF's Bugzilla does not have a 'mod_mbox' project and no bugs
are currently reported for mod_mbox to the Apache-2.x bugzilla
project, the STATUS file is kinda verbose on known bugs and
incompatibilities.
But the fact is that we came to a running mod_mbox (server side) and
browser incompatibilities are avoided by deactivating the dynamic
browser if the client is not compatible.
> S. (and why 0.2, why not 1.0? What are the criteria for 1.0?)
That's why I only want to call it 0.2 and not 1.0. Because a 0.3 will
come in the next months I hope to fix these problems and improve the
thing. I don't think we should call it 1.0 until we make the dynamic
browser work everywhere. Google makes it for every single
bleeding-edge web-based application they do, why not us ?
Thanks for the reply,
- Sam
--
Maxime Petazzoni (http://www.bulix.org)
-- gone crazy, back soon. leave message.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
