On 23-11-2013 3:47, Noel Butler wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 10:14 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Thomas Leuxner <[email protected]>:
> * Ralf Hildebrandt <[email protected]> 2013.11.22 09:44:
>
> > Which patch?
>
> http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2013-November/093654.html
>
> Pigeonhole related patches.
Damn. Those are biting me as well :/
These would be found if Timo reverted back to issuing RC's before any
official release, to iron out the niggly off-putting bugs, like most
software does, or gets his devs and a community of official testers
each
with wildly different configurations and set ups, ASF have an excellent
model that could be followed, bunch of devs and testers who each report
on different distros and configs, why? because no single dev can
imagine
and test every possible configuration. it might just save dovecot's
good name, I recall a lot of damage was done to that in the circles I'm
in when 2.0 was released with patches nearly every few days and weeks,
I
know a few ISP's and businesses that went back to courier or Wu's
because major bugs were getting in often, though it has been a lot
better since 2.1 series, until this release that is :)
I second this and offer my services for two, three different system
configs from Dovecot's plain old simple config with MAILDIR to slightly
more complicated
configurations with proxying/LDAP/dsync/mySQL etc based on
virtualization with KVM.
I also propose that upon employing above strategy that Timo should come
up with a
release cycles (long term, short term) with announced targets. Patches
should be released as patches strictly as needed, not releases, and
should be announced on a low traffic list like he is already doing with
releases. OR something along these lines.
I know these are growing pains but essential. Email systems are CRITICAL
for most of us.
Andreas
