Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>> Should things like JAMES-489 and my fix to the locking/unlocking of the
>>> outgoing spool (found and fixed during the JAMES-491 refactoring) be
>>> merged and included in 2.3.0 roadmap or you prefer to keep them only for
>>> the 2.4 release?
>>
>> Yes for JAMES-489, and I was going to ask you the same question about the
>> locking changes. What's your view? If you're confident in the fix, I'd
say
>> that we should put it into 2.3.
> I consider the lock/unlock change critical because when I touch
> synchronization I'm never confident about the change.
I agree. Let's put them in, especially with testing going on, and we can
back it out if necessary. Besides, we'll want to test it hard, anyway,
since you have already put it into trunk.
> if we don't identify changes/features to be added to the 2.3 branch
For 2.3.0, I'm happy to put out what we have, featurewise.
> Probably in the next weeks we'll also test the trunk more
Then we can consider releasing 2.4 in due course, e.g., late June or early
July.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
