Danny Angus ha scritto: > On 5/3/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I would have preferred if the mailet project was created by COPYING >> instead of MOVING from trunk so that trunk would have been fully working >> and functional during this transition. > > I hope it will be OK *before* the next nightly build.
Cool. >> I have a couple of requests: >> >> 1) Please give me the time to fix the m2 pom stuff before trying to call >> a release for mailet 2.3. > > OK. > >> 2) Maybe we should use 2.3.1 or 2.4 as the version number as the 2.3 >> release is the jar we bundled in the official james 2.3.0. On the other >> side it is true that the api has not changed since james 2.3.0 release, >> so it would only be a repackage of the same version (is there a best >> practice in ASF for this?) > > I think we should use 2.3.1 if it is identical to the jar in server > 2.3.1, that way no one will be confused. I don't think we can make anything "identical": we have to at least add the NOTICE and LICENSE to the jar to make it redistributable as a "standalone" artifact. IIRC the sourcecode for the mailet in JAMES Server 2.3.0 and JAMES Server 2.3.1 had not changed. In the sourcecode for mailet we have some "@since Mailet API v2.3" so I'm fine with anything >= 2.3 >> PS: weird choice to write this to private and mailet-api ;-) > > We'll I sent it to mailet-api because thats the list for the project, > and cc'ed the PMC because they (we?) should know about it. They (we) should monitor all of the project mailing list ;-) Btw it was only a joke because you looked too much susceptible to the use of the private list :-) > I'll fw it to server-dev too. I didn't want to cross post, but I guess > this does affect them all. +1 Thank you again, Stefano
