> So, I'm sitting here starting to work on the release. > Amongst my questions is whether this is 2.3 or 3.0. One > basis for the latter are the changes not so much in API, but > in the configuration files. Administrators will need to make > changes, primarily in the smtphandler. But for now, I'm > calling it 2.3.
+1. > With respect to config.xml: > > -- we say that derby is our default, but ALL of the > data sources are commented out, including Derby. I'm +1 for this change. http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-393?page=all > -- the config is putting the database under bin/. > I think we should move that under var/. Thank you for the fix. > As I said, I'm just working my way through things, and > posting as I find something of note. Comments solicited. > Help appreciated. :-) > > Speaking of which, we need to work on: > > -- docs > -- package build. licenses need to be put at the package root > -- web site. Embarrassingly, the AL v1 is showing on the web > site (I noticed that today), even though AL v2 is everywhere > else in JAMES. > -- web site building (just moving things around a bit, to start). > > Does anyone have time to help work on these things? > > --- Noel I currently don't have too much time. Maybe I should try to keep the time for code issues. I don't know much about documentation generation, website rules and release packaging. I don't know wether this is a possible roadmap or not but I think we could publish a first 2.3.0 alpha 1 release and from there decide what changes/bugfix we need for the following release and delay the goal to update website/docs for the 2.3.0rc1. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
