Thanks for sending this, Steve, really! I very heartfully agree with you.
This is a mail for printing out and double-checking everytime before
hitting the "send" button.
Thanks again!
Bernd
On 10/25/06, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I stumbled across this unsent message in my
Stefano wrote:
> Noel wrote:
>> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>> I don't agree with your version numbers, but if you can read my message
>>> you will find that I never talked about 2.4 or 3.0
>> See the subject header.
> Then now that I explained you that it was not related to 2.4 you can
> read it again
Hi guys,
so much words again for so few information, and not always fun to read.
anyway, a few very short takes from me to let you know what my preferences are:
Working on trunk towards 3.0: +1
Supporting old configuration in future versions: +1
Working on 2.4 by backporting stuff: +0
Using mi
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I don't know what's the problem with you.
And I don't know the meaning of "decision by message volume".
See Steve Brewin's e-mail.
I don't agree with your version numbers, but if you can read my message
you will find that I never talked about 2.4 or 3.0
See the subjec
> I don't know what's the problem with you.
> And I don't know the meaning of "decision by message volume".
See Steve Brewin's e-mail.
> I don't agree with your version numbers, but if you can read my message
> you will find that I never talked about 2.4 or 3.0
See the subject header.
Steve Brewin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I stumbled across this unsent message in my drafts.
Feck! Sorry, too late now.
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I stumbled across this unsent message in my drafts. I had decided not to
send it, but in the light of current server-dev discussions I've changed my
mind (obviously). The original context was "Version numbers (Was: LONG JAMES
v2.4 Road Map)". I'm sending this to the PMC as I don't think it goo
Next minor +0 (time is passing and I think that it is becoming
unfeasible to get something in a short term, specially without the
involvement of Norman and Stefano)
Next major +1
Vincenzo
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
More than 1 month ago we discussed a lot about next releases road
maps. We talk
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
[..]
Now I try to define the 3 releases named above:
"next-minor":
- based on 2.3.0
- storage and config.xml compatibile with 2.3.0
- selective choice of what to backport from trunk.
- ETA: branch on Nov/Dec 2006, release on Dec/Jan 2007
"next-major":
- based on current t
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Steve Brewin wrote:
Norman wrote:
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've added this point because Noel and Vincenzo brought
this as animportant point in the 2.4 roadmap discussion.
I personally don't care of
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
My proposal is:
- everything we have in trunk now: now I can't see anything critical
enough to be removed.
Well, this was already there ;-)
Release planning by fiat? I think that we would have to be INSANE to
release trunk as JAMES v2.4!
1) This was not a relase p
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Slightly more than a month ago I wrote a roadmap, here is an update for
people that has not time for a day to day oversight.
And I disagreed with you then, and so did others, and I am really getting
tired of decision by message volume. I don't believe that I am alone in
More than 1 month ago we discussed a lot about next releases road maps.
We talked about 2.3.1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 and much more, but after
more than 1 months it seems that there's no consent yet.
I saw that we had different ideas about things to be done and how to
number them, so I tried to
> > My proposal is:
> > - everything we have in trunk now: now I can't see anything critical
> > enough to be removed.
> Well, this was already there ;-)
Release planning by fiat? I think that we would have to be INSANE to
release trunk as JAMES v2.4!
More to come. And, no, I am not just rea
Steve Brewin wrote:
> Norman wrote:
>> Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
> >>> On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've added this point because Noel and Vincenzo brought
> this as animportant point in the 2.4 roadmap discussion.
> I personally don't care of
> Slightly more than a month ago I wrote a roadmap, here is an update for
> people that has not time for a day to day oversight.
And I disagreed with you then, and so did others, and I am really getting
tired of decision by message volume. I don't believe that I am alone in
that sentiment.
Trunk
[junit] Running org.apache.james.dnsserver.DNSServerTest
[junit] Tests run: 3, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 15.607 sec
And no information on WHY it failed?
In any event, it appears to have been transient. I just re-ran it manually,
and all of the tests passed.
--- Noel
17 matches
Mail list logo
