I almost agree with Bernd.
I would like to add that here
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
we have 4 unresolved issues.
Before we make an RC1 we should have fixed all the known issues or moved
them to 2.4.
I also don't think that the default use of db and file we have now is
the best thing.
We have *dbfile* for inbox and spool repositories.
We have *file* for default repository destinations (see ToRepository mailet)
We have *file* for the outgoing spool repository.
Imho we should move to dbfile everything if we decide to have that as
the default.
I don't like having the main spool as dbfile and outgoing as file.
My vote is +1 to move everything to file, db or dbfile.
I don't have a specific preference for one of them.
I use db only but it has problems with very big file.
Maybe new users would understand better the file only or db only than
dbfile (dbfile is harder to manage at hand)
Maybe dbfile is the best compromise between performance and stability
(maybe we should confirm this using Postage)
About the open issues I could accept an RC release with only JAMES-432
open.
Imho JAMES-302 could be closed as "won't fix" or moved to 2.4.
For JAMES-496 I would backport the change from trunk and I would remove
the whole handlerchain configuration from the default config.xml. I
would prefer to have an additional sample config.xml to show the chain
features or a documentation page but I would like to have a cleaner
config.xml with no reference to the handlerchain (that I would like to
change for 2.4 without having to worry about backward compatibility)
Stefano
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
+0 for cutting a beta2, had no time to evaluate my 3-day test run
results yet and 1 or 2 runs are still to pending.
I'd like to have us decide on the TEMPORARY DEFAULT configuration
before having a RC.
Because I suppose a fair amount of users are using the default config
and it can be seen as a recommended way to run the server, it could be
problematic to change it from a tested RC to release.
Bernd
On 6/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you run
svn log -r HEAD:409032
you will see what has changed since we put out beta 1. I think that
we are
in good shape to put out beta 2. I don't know if anyone wants to call it
release candidate 1 or not.
I'd like to post the next milestone before leaving for Europe on
Monday, so
this is a call for comments. Any more changes coming?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
