> Noel. Looks good.
> I would recommend only bug fixes in 2.1 branch and fixes like logging
> comment changes etc. in 3.0 branch.
IMO, James v3 is at least 6 months off from being stable, and probably close
to a year to a Release Build unless we get some additional developer
resources. My expectation is that entire repository code will be replaced,
amongst other things.
James v2 is stable. Features and fixes that can be made within the stable
code base without negatively impacting it ought to be made, especially if
they are forward compatible with v3.
I don't care if we call it 2.1.x, 2.2, or 2.foo, but I don't think that we
should stop work on James v2, especially if it is forward portable. On the
other hand, I think that other things certainly should be defered to James
v3 in order to take advantage of its new features.
> NNTPGroupImpl.java:
> This seems bad and buggy.
> For reasons unknown to me and comments don't give a clue
> - This has evolved from a read only to read write structure
> - Response format has been added. Orig. intent was to separate the
response
> format from datastructures sort of like Model/View.
All I did was fix the initial boundary conditions for article numbers.
There is a lot of work to be done fixing this code.
> May I say, you should have taken this from me when I committed myself or
> waited for me to finish it
> As I said earlier I have too much on my hands atm and it is relief
> to me to have nntp working well.
Well, I guess the latter is a good reason for my not doing the former. You
don't need the stress, and these patches really did need to be made.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
