Hi Bernd,
this is *the best* Mail I read on this thread !!!
Kind regards
Juergen
Bernd Fondermann schrieb:
> 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
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stefano and I certainly had a misunderstanding over his intent for
"2.4" (the next minor release), due to the subject heading. If were were in
physical proximity, I'd shake his hand. We've already apologized for the
misunderstanding, and had a very long chat (each of us m
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
All I want is some discipline about what goes into a release, and then I'll
be a happy camper again. Stop telling me about releasing trunk, and start
talking about how we'll put together a safe, stable, reliable distribution
with all of the new features we want, and my doc
Norman,
(I seem to have missed alot of mail, and got it all in one batch!)
I've replied about vhosting in a new thread,
I think the most problems of people are that they fear to "break"
james.. But why we should fear with new junit tests :-P
This is true, but it is also true that some propos
Noel J. Bergman schrieb:
> 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
>> th
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
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
> > 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
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
> Norman Maurer wrote:
> > Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini schrieb:
> >
> >> Danny Angus wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> I've added this point because Noel and Vincenzo brought
> this as an
> important poi
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini schrieb:
Norman Maurer wrote:
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini schrieb:
Danny Angus wrote:
On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've added this point because Noel and Vincenzo brought this as an
important point in the 2.4 roadmap discussion.
Norman Maurer wrote:
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini schrieb:
Danny Angus wrote:
On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've added this point because Noel and Vincenzo brought this as an
important point in the 2.4 roadmap discussion.
I personally don't care of config
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini schrieb:
> Danny Angus wrote:
>> On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I've added this point because Noel and Vincenzo brought this as an
>>> important point in the 2.4 roadmap discussion.
>>> I personally don't care of config.xml compatibility: I
Hi Danny,
something to say ..
Danny Angus schrieb:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Thanks for your detailed reply, I hope my comments below will reassure
> you that I'm not proposing anything radical, just a slightly more
> visible planning process, and some small refactorings.
> I also hope that we're beginni
Danny Angus wrote:
Right, and thats the right thing to do. If everyone adds their own
thing to a list (the status file?) we can see what everyone is capable
of achieving, and outline the contents of planned releases without
having to comit to dates.
Releases need to be roughly planned for major a
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
Danny Angus wrote:
On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've added this point because Noel and Vincenzo brought this as an
important point in the 2.4 roadmap discussion.
I personally don't care of config.xml compatibility: I was just
reportin
Danny Angus wrote:
On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've added this point because Noel and Vincenzo brought this as an
important point in the 2.4 roadmap discussion.
I personally don't care of config.xml compatibility: I was just
reporting what I understood was important
Danny Angus wrote:
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for your detailed reply, I hope my comments below will reassure
you that I'm not proposing anything radical, just a slightly more
visible planning process, and some small refactorings.
I also hope that we're beginning to reach a common understanding of
what
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for your detailed reply, I hope my comments below will reassure
you that I'm not proposing anything radical, just a slightly more
visible planning process, and some small refactorings.
I also hope that we're beginning to reach a common understanding of
what James project is lac
Danny Angus wrote:
On 10/21/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we consider timetabling some other changes now that we've made
> such good progress?
Well, I think important things are:
1) don't delay the next release cycle once we added the features we
planned (and currenlty th
On 10/21/06, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In POP3 people would have to use "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as login and no more
> "user".
Thats exactly what i whould like to see as next steps.. The path of the
mailboxes should also switch then to : /var/mail/domain/user
The enabling/disabling
On 10/21/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we consider timetabling some other changes now that we've made
> such good progress?
Well, I think important things are:
1) don't delay the next release cycle once we added the features we
planned (and currenlty the only missing big p
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> I think that the solution I found out-there to provide easy
> out-of-the-box v hosting support is to put "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" into the
> UsersRepository and change "LocalDelivery" (ToMultiRepository) to use
> the full recipient instead of the recipient.getName() when retrie
Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
Danny Angus wrote:
On 10/20/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Thanks Stefano ;-)
Can we consider timetabling some other changes n
Danny Angus wrote:
On 10/20/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Thanks Stefano ;-)
Can we consider timetabling some other changes now that we've made
such go
On 10/20/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Thanks Stefano ;-)
Can we consider timetabling some other changes now that we've made
such good progress?
1/ One
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.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Norman Maurer wrote:
I agree with Stefano.. And i think we can push a 2.4 release in 6 Month
( At least i hope so).
So i think the next step mu
On 9/15/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>> For me its:
>> 2.3.x = bugfixes
>> 2.4 = 2.3.x + new features ( compatible)
>> 3.0 = incompatible changes
>
> addition: 3.0 = incompatible changes, big new features
>
> +1, thats absolutely my take, and my understan
Bernd Fondermann schrieb:
On 9/14/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I will read and reply to the various comments later, but I want to
put some
figures into the picture.
$ du -hs branches/v2.3/src/java trunk/src/java
13M branches/v2.3/src/java
15M trunk/src/java
$ svn
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini schrieb:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
Yes, but we already used a different scheme for 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3..
so why change it for 2.4?
Because IMHO it was wrong :-) .
Ok, What I'm trying to say that consistency helps understanding: if
yo
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
For me its:
2.3.x = bugfixes
2.4 = 2.3.x + new features ( compatible)
3.0 = incompatible changes
addition: 3.0 = incompatible changes, big new features
+1, thats absolutely my take, and my understanding about what is
common sense in the industry
And I don't think its on
On 9/15/06, Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
>
>
> It's more than one year that I write to this list, you should have
> learned that my discussion are a little rude. Don't take it so hard.
Ok :-) . But we italians (es
On 9/14/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I will read and reply to the various comments later, but I want to put some
figures into the picture.
$ du -hs branches/v2.3/src/java trunk/src/java
13M branches/v2.3/src/java
15M trunk/src/java
$ svn
diff --old=https://svn.apac
On 9/14/06, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini schrieb:
> I think that we have different goals and views about what is a minor
> release, and how it should be reflected in the naming (numbering) scheme.
>
> For me (and as I understand also for Noel) a James x.(y+1)
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
I think that you can create a new version in jira and call it
"next-minor" and make a list of things you want to merge back in this
release. I hope it is fine for you if I won't work on this branch and
to agree that this release should not block trunk developmen
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
Yes, but we already used a different scheme for 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3..
so why change it for 2.4?
Because IMHO it was wrong :-) .
Ok, What I'm trying to say that consistency helps understanding: if
you change the rules in the middle you
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
Furthermore I want to let you know that the new fastfail stuff need
changes to configuration files and would no allow conditions (ii) and
(iv), so using your numbering scheme would not be suitable for 2.4.
My point is (without integralism) to be able to get 2.4
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I will read and reply to the various comments later, but I want to put some
figures into the picture.
[..]
$ ls -l diff.txt
-rw-rw-r-- 1 noel noel 2056010 Sep 14 13:19 diff.txt
So there are 2MB worth of differences in the Java code between trunk and
v2.3. Some of the 2
Noel J. Bergman schrieb:
I will read and reply to the various comments later, but I want to put some
figures into the picture.
$ du -hs branches/v2.3/src/java trunk/src/java
13M branches/v2.3/src/java
15M trunk/src/java
$ svn
diff --old=https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/
I will read and reply to the various comments later, but I want to put some
figures into the picture.
$ du -hs branches/v2.3/src/java trunk/src/java
13M branches/v2.3/src/java
15M trunk/src/java
$ svn
diff --old=https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/v2.3/src/j
ava \
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
Yes, but we already used a different scheme for 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.. so
why change it for 2.4?
Because IMHO it was wrong :-) .
Ok, What I'm trying to say that consistency helps understanding: if you
change the rules in the middle you don't help people.
And if y
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
I think that we have different goals and views about what is a minor
release, and how it should be reflected in the naming (numbering)
scheme.
For me (and as I understand also for Noel) a James x.(y+1) release
should be a release that
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini schrieb:
I think that we have different goals and views about what is a minor
release, and how it should be reflected in the naming (numbering) scheme.
For me (and as I understand also for Noel) a James x.(y+1) release
should be a release that (i) comes out after no m
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote:
I think that we have different goals and views about what is a minor
release, and how it should be reflected in the naming (numbering) scheme.
For me (and as I understand also for Noel) a James x.(y+1) release
should be a release that (i) comes out after no mor
I think that we have different goals and views about what is a minor
release, and how it should be reflected in the naming (numbering) scheme.
For me (and as I understand also for Noel) a James x.(y+1) release
should be a release that (i) comes out after no more than 2-3 months
after an x.y re
Am Mittwoch, den 13.09.2006, 10:13 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
> Norman Maurer wrote:
> >>> Now I think that not only we should include everything we have now in
> >>> trunk, but we should also define a period of feature development where
> >>> we try to put in every cool feature we are able to
Norman Maurer wrote:
>>> Now I think that not only we should include everything we have now in
>>> trunk, but we should also define a period of feature development where
>>> we try to put in every cool feature we are able to develop in this time
>>> with one single restriction: keep storage compati
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> As I said long ago, if you want to move trunk to 2.4, we should
>>> review every difference. Then, if we agree that each one
>>> represents a suitable risk/reward, fine.
>
>> I'm sorry but (as I also said long ago) I
Am Dienstag, den 12.09.2006, 21:44 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > As I said long ago, if you want to move trunk to 2.4, we should
> > > review every difference. Then, if we agree that each one
> > > represents a suitable risk/reward, fin
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > As I said long ago, if you want to move trunk to 2.4, we should
> > review every difference. Then, if we agree that each one
> > represents a suitable risk/reward, fine.
> I'm sorry but (as I also said long ago) I'm on the opposite position
> a
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Norman Maurer wrote:
>
Personally, I'm ready to make it a release, and start work on 2.4,
> which
should be a careful selection of things to add, not a core dump from
> trunk.
>>> We never agreed on this roadmap. And I think I won't agree on this
>>> approach eve
60 matches
Mail list logo
