Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Stefano Bagnara wrote: Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote: You should do this in trunk. Trunk is where development is done. After you have done this in trunk we can discuss wether to backport it to some branch. And I will do it that way. But then I need to immediately backport to 2.3 (or 2.4), b

Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote: You should do this in trunk. Trunk is where development is done. After you have done this in trunk we can discuss wether to backport it to some branch. And I will do it that way. But then I need to immediately backport to 2.3 (or 2.4), because I have to deliver

Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

You are right. Let's then create a 2.4 branch from 2.3, so some work can be done. In my case, being very busy, I unfortunately cannot work too much, but in the very short time I can work on two or three things that can make it for 2.4. And obviously, as correctly said many times by Stefano, I

Re: AW: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Jürgen Hoffmann wrote: Hi Vincenzo, see inline... -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Dezember 2006 16:04 An: James Developers List Betreff: Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch *We* comitters should be wise

Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Joachim Draeger wrote: Agree, but at the same time having three branches is hard to mantain (we know that from the past history of James), so what I think is worth is to all of us be more *flexible and pragmatic*. And we should be open for *compromises*. It just seems that James PMC and commun

Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Stefano Bagnara wrote: Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote: Agree, but at the same time having three branches is hard to mantain (we know that from the past history of James), so what I think is worth is to all of us be more *flexible and pragmatic*. Imho mantainability depends on how much people

AW: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Hi Vincenzo, see inline... -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Dezember 2006 16:04 An: James Developers List Betreff: Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch *We* comitters should be wise enough to judge and make the

Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Am Donnerstag, den 21.12.2006, 16:03 +0100 schrieb Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini: > > - New Features into Trunk > > - Bugfixes into the Release Branch of 2.3 > > - ported Features of Trunk that should be incorporated into the 2.3 codebase > > should be done into a new branch with the name 2.4 > > > >

Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote: Agree, but at the same time having three branches is hard to mantain (we know that from the past history of James), so what I think is worth is to all of us be more *flexible and pragmatic*. Imho mantainability depends on how much people is committed to the pr

Re: AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Hi Jürgen, read inline... Vincenzo Jürgen Hoffmann wrote: Hi Vincenzo, reading your mail, I was wondering what the difference between a minor and a major feature might be? IMHO, in this context "minor" should mean simple and safe, or optional (like a new mailet for example, whose usage is not

AW: [VOTE] Using of 2.3 branch

Hi Vincenzo, reading your mail, I was wondering what the difference between a minor and a major feature might be? Who sets the bar, who makes the decision? Who is responsible to put the branch feature into trunk? IMHO it should be the other way around. - New Features into Trunk - Bugfixes into t