----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't know if we need a vote, but ... > > Do we agree that it is a good idea to create a temporary branch for purposes > of resolving our Avalon conflicts? We can make the changes to HEAD > directly, but that would temporarily disable your ability to build runnable > James (other than from branch_2_1_fcs) until we finished. A couple of thoughts... 1. I'd like to hear more of the case for upgrading our Avalon components. We have a working version, and I haven't seen a case made for what features/fixes we're after that justifies the upgrade work, just that it doesn't compile against what's in Avalon's CVS. I wouldn't really discourage anyone from doing the upgrade mind you, it's just that we've got an underlying library that changes API and features, sometimes without changing version numbers, so without listing the benefits, it's the kind of upgrade I generally think a lot about before doing. Even the rarely released and stable package of JavaMail/JAF went through a qualification of what bugs/improvements we wanted with the upgrade, as with DnsJava. 2. I don't think whoever is making these changes should commit changes until you have a runnable James (or at least in that person's knowledge... not saying there won't be bugs, but you shouldn't commit incomplete changes). 3. I don't think we need to branch as these changes could be made directly to HEAD. Serge Knystautas Loki Technologies http://www.lokitech.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
