Noel J. Bergman wrote:
What I described is, from memory, something that we have discussed when we've
tried to address versioning. Are you saying that you don't agree with the
idea, or what?
The only thing important to me is that we don't care about numbers while
we develop.
We put in the changes we need as soon as a committer have the time and
the will to create something new.
We try to keep the trunk code as stable as possible so to be able to
make a new release at any given point by just branching and starting
bugfixing.
We we decide to branch we know what is the feature set and what are the
changes against the previous version and we can *VOTE* for the revision
to branch and the number to use.
IMO we don't have enough developer power to block it because of a
roadmap including 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4.0, 2.4.1, 2.5.0, 3.0, 4.0 and so on.
This would be a big mistake and I bet this would only bring James to
2.3.1 in an year and maybe 2.4.0 with few new features in 2 years.
So I would not like to put a label in our trunk. Trunk is trunk, is
where we, collaborating, put new code with not so specific order: only
branches should have a clear roadmap and todo list.
We already have outdated todos:
http://james.apache.org/todo.html
http://wiki.apache.org/james/JamesV3
We can achieve the goals only with new code: discussions and numbers,
unfortunately don't fix bugs and don't create new features.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
