Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I know we had proposed it, but I wasn't sure or forgot if that was the consensus.Have you unleashed the hoardes of the marketing demons yet?I thought that there was a request that I hold off until v2.1.1 with the NNTP fixes?
Now that I am back in the office, I was going to apply the ones that I have and do some testing. And I have some documentation fixes to do.
Great.
I had been holding off because it seemed that it was something that was contentious. I'm happy to go in and apply it to both branches. Similarly there didn't seem to be consensus as to how/whether to decide whether to aggressively enforce the client's implementation, so I was only going to patch it to not do the unintended buffering, and have us later revisit how/if we manage enforcement of the standard.Please take a look at http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JamesV2Plans. Are you planning to do that buffering patch for v2.1.1, or are we postponing it for the next point release?
Some of the Planned section of that page kind of seem like just general development that are necessary if we don't intend to release James 3.0 for some time (things such as updates to redirect mailet, maybe the new matchers).
Not a big deal, but I would prefer to release James 3.0 sooner rather than later with whatever can be quickly agreed rather than wait too long. I think Danny's made good progress getting through lots of things we all meant to address in terms of the mailet API, and then hopefully class loading. Beyond that, I see mailet attributes, mordred preplacement, and I'd like to explain my virtual mounting ideas, and then maybe we could even get a release not too long after that. The biggest thing I would suggest delaying is the matcher parameter/BSF matcher/mailet/sieve, etc... because that's dependent on some of the changes we're making now, and I think it would be good to release something between now and when that's sorted out.
Of course if someone grabs the bull by the horn and gets us through these tough issues, then so much the better. Mainly was just saying I'd prefer to keep the 2.1 branch relatively lean by not trying to get everything done before 3.0 is released. :)
--
Serge Knystautas
Loki Technologies
http://www.lokitech.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
