On 2015-09-03 15:13, Matthieu Baechler wrote:
On 03/09/2015 11:48, Eric Charles wrote:
On 2015-09-03 11:04, Matthieu Baechler wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 03/09/2015 10:16, Eric Charles wrote:
I like Matthieu proposal (merge without mime4...), but this will open
the door to more refactoring that w
On 03/09/2015 11:48, Eric Charles wrote:
On 2015-09-03 11:04, Matthieu Baechler wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 03/09/2015 10:16, Eric Charles wrote:
I like Matthieu proposal (merge without mime4...), but this will open
the door to more refactoring that would maybe go against the initial
requirement of
On 2015-09-01 14:29, Benoit Tellier wrote:
(snip...)
- Finally, there is the issue that started this thread. There might be
duplication between mailbox code and james-server-data-* one. In the
Cassandra example, we developed tools for creating tables, index, custom
types... That we want to
On 2015-09-03 11:04, Matthieu Baechler wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 03/09/2015 10:16, Eric Charles wrote:
I like Matthieu proposal (merge without mime4...), but this will open
the door to more refactoring that would maybe go against the initial
requirement of being able to embed some mailbox without th
Hi Eric,
On 03/09/2015 10:16, Eric Charles wrote:
I like Matthieu proposal (merge without mime4...), but this will open
the door to more refactoring that would maybe go against the initial
requirement of being able to embed some mailbox without the full server.
Of course, as the mailbox API wi
I like Matthieu proposal (merge without mime4...), but this will open
the door to more refactoring that would maybe go against the initial
requirement of being able to embed some mailbox without the full server.
Maybe we should write to guidelines we can refer when working in that
single repos
On 2015-08-27 11:11, Stephen Brewin wrote:
Hi
As I recall, the intent of having separate projects for many of the
components developed under the James umbrella was to satisfy the
requirement that they should be independent of James Server. While this
remains a requirement, separate repositories
On 2015-08-28 20:40, Stephen Brewin wrote:
Hi Vincenzo and Ioan
While Mattiheu's proposal does mention switching to GIT and I agree that
GIT is superior to SVN and I support this, the most important part is
the restructuring of our projects.
James structure should be independent of any versi
Hi Benoit
There appears to be consensus that our project layout should be
refactored along the lines suggested by Matthieu. You seem to be
suggesting that we go further, which I believe we should hold off on.
With Matthieu's refactored structure a mulit-module Maven build that
uses a BOM (a
In my opinion this decision belongs to active developers: they are the
users of the source tree and the build tools, so they are entitled to
make the changes to feel confortable.
So, if active developers prefer to have a single branch, then you have
my +1 for this.
IIRC Robert was the main suppor
For me this is a +1.
I think there is several issue with today organization :
- Some projects are not really separated. For instance, if I want to
add QUOTA support, I will modify Mailbox interfaces, but also change
things in protocols.
- Having separated modules that are eavily change
On 01/09/2015 08:18, Matthieu Baechler wrote:
Thank you for your answer Stephen. It looks like we agree one this
proposal.
Can I take your answer for a +1 ?
+1 for restructuring
We should discuss transitioning to GIT separately
--Steve
---
Thank you for your answer Stephen. It looks like we agree one this proposal.
Can I take your answer for a +1 ?
Eric : you didn't gave your opinion yet, WDYT ?
--
Matthieu Baechler
On 27/08/2015 20:02, Stephen Brewin wrote:
My previous post corrected for copy/paste issues on phone!
On 27/08/2
Thank you Stephen for clarifying this, I totally agree but didn't find
time to answer, you just beat me at answering !
Cheers,
--
Matthieu Baechler
On 28/08/2015 20:40, Stephen Brewin wrote:
Hi Vincenzo and Ioan
While Mattiheu's proposal does mention switching to GIT and I agree that
GIT is s
Hi Vincenzo and Ioan
While Mattiheu's proposal does mention switching to GIT and I agree that
GIT is superior to SVN and I support this, the most important part is
the restructuring of our projects.
As I have explained in an earlier post the proposed change abandons the
façade that component
Hi all,
sorry for not having been active at all in the last period.
Anyway, I agree with Ioan that using GIT is *much* more productive than
using SVN, so I cast here my +1.
Regards,
Vincenzo
Il giorno lun 24 ago 2015 alle ore 21:51 Ioan Eugen Stan <
stan.ieu...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
>
My previous post corrected for copy/paste issues on phone!
On 27/08/2015 17:17, Stephen Brewin wrote:
On 27/08/2015 10:24, Matthieu Baechler wrote:
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your feedback.
On 27/08/2015 11:11, Stephen Brewin wrote:
Hi
As I recall, the intent of having separate projects for many
On 27/08/2015 10:24, Matthieu Baechler wrote:
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your feedback.
On 27/08/2015 11:11, Stephen Brewin wrote:
Hi
As I recall, the intent of having separate projects for many of the
components developed under the James umbrella was to satisfy the
requirement that they should be
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your feedback.
On 27/08/2015 11:11, Stephen Brewin wrote:
Hi
As I recall, the intent of having separate projects for many of the
components developed under the James umbrella was to satisfy the
requirement that they should be independent of James Server. While this
remains
Hi
As I recall, the intent of having separate projects for many of the
components developed under the James umbrella was to satisfy the
requirement that they should be independent of James Server. While this
remains a requirement, separate repositories are needed for each project
to allow sep
+1
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Matthieu Baechler
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For some months, Antoine Duprat, Benoit Tellier and myself are working
> daily on James 3.
>
> We tried hard to make our development workflow as simple as possible.
>
> One thing that's very annoying right now is that Jam
Hi,
Yes, the work flow is not the best with SVN. There is an option to
migrate James to git hosting and personally I think it will be a good
thing.
In order to make this a reality we have to raise a vote and raise a JIRA
issue to Apache Infra. The vote has to run for 72h.
You have my +1.
p.s. O
Hi all,
For some months, Antoine Duprat, Benoit Tellier and myself are working
daily on James 3.
We tried hard to make our development workflow as simple as possible.
One thing that's very annoying right now is that James is composed of
several git repositories.
We tried to use "git submod
23 matches
Mail list logo
