Agreed. I was hoping that at least the billing issue (I remember it being talked about in the list a while back) would interest people. I do think, though, that fixes to problems not yet detected "in the wild" should go in anyway : that's why it's called a "development tree", if the solution does not break anything - of course. IMHO, the current situation where the CVS build must never be broken because it is the "production version" and so patches require careful scrutiny before going in is not healthy. CVS _is_ the place to test fixes and new features - when you require that people will download and apply your patches one by one, the number of testers will shrink to the number of people interested in the specfic patch - which in a not-so-high visibility project like Kannel could easily get down to 1~2 people - or even less. case in point is the +CMTI patch by Alex Judd - it seems like a perfectly valid feature, but only 2 or 3 people on this list are at the same time interested and skilled to test it - under a circumstences where some of them cannot find the time to do so, this perfectly good feature would simply be abandoned.
I suggest we should roll out a "release" ASAP, using the following schedule : - branch the tree now (yesterday would have been a good time too ;-) and label it 1.2.0. - bug fixes may be submitted to either of the trees, and then ported to the other. - new features may be submitted only to the HEAD tree. - features and bug fixes will be submitted freely to the HEAD tree with minimum checks for style and obvious coding errors. - the HEAD tree will be considered unstable and fit only for development work. Using this method we would not further degrade the current situation (where people who have problems are told to upgrade their production servers to the CVS version - as it is more stable), while stabilizing the development effort for a full fledged "stable" release w/o hampering further feature development. Opinions please ? -- Oded Arbel m-Wise Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (972)-67-340014 (972)-9-9581711 (ext: 116) ::.. Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stipe Tolj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 5:29 PM > Cc: Kannel-devel (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [PATCH] problems with HTTPS and base support for > per message billing. > > > > Both patches are deployed and "works for me", and while I understand > > that those are not high priority problems for most users, I will be > > grateful if the patches are incorporated into the CVS (will > save me work > > when I update from CVS ;-) > > we have to garantee that no "it cool and needed for me" issues go to > easy to the cvs tree. As long as things can be configured to serve the > needs of several user parties that's better then having properietary > solution fixing IMO. > > Stipe > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wapme Systems AG > > M�nsterstr. 248 > 40470 D�sseldorf > > Tel: +49-211-74845-0 > Fax: +49-211-74845-299 > > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > wapme.net - wherever you are > >
