Hi to all Developers, I have been following this thread for some time now. Being a Person that is only watching, I came to the conclusion that You as Developers have a totally different understanding as of what should be a 2.4 Release.
Right now you are quarreling about things that should be defined once and then be clear to everyone. Looking at the Message History, quarreling and endless discussions are quite common to this project. I know I am an outsider talking, but my Company is spending a certain amount of time and money into this project by giving Norman the opportunity to support this project (the official way). We chose james because we felt that James has a good codebase, and gives us the opportunity to extend its functionality to what we need. We have a lot of Experience in E-Mail Clusters and E-Mail Product Solutions. Nothing was as easily extendable as james. On the Contrary, the Feature Set is still very limited. That said, there have been great efforts in widening this topic. Our Companies Goal is to make the JAMES Server a State-Of-The Art E-Mail Server which can be used as a drop-in solution with best-of-breed solutions to common problems. What we have found out is, that this project is willing to walk the way with us. BUT I have also found out, that the Members are hindering themselves to some extent by not talking objectively about certain topics. I see and understand that there are different understandings about release planning. So I want to first lay the cornerstone for the next release. Please vote on which mechanism you want to keep on developing. Vincenzo suggested the most common approach project-x.y.z releases where x - is a release change that is not backwards compatible, or contains major feature enhancements, that involve more inspection by the user, because current configurations are incompatible with this release. y - is a release change that is backward compatible, but contains major feature enhancements. The Installation is not guaranteed to be working with current configurations, but most likely will. z - is completely compatible to the previous release, and contains only bugfixes. From what I understood from the recent posts, is that release planning was handles different in the past, and why should one change it now, when it was different in the past. Well IMHO we all evolve with a project. Sometimes certain decisions are good, sometimes they are bad. But just because there have been bad decisions does not mean to keep bearing with them instead of changing them to something better. But the version numbering is only solving half the problem. The next thing is to define what should be inside a Release. this should first be analyzed by topic i.e. will feature a be an incompatible change, or not. Successful Open-Source Projects (Eclipse, ...) have a strict Release Plan (Minor Releases every 6 Months, Major Releases every Year), with a certain set of features. The Feature Sets should be chosen, so that the release is possible. The Projected Release Dates are fixed to some extend. If a Release Date is coming closer, and it is obvious that a certain feature can not be implemented/integrated to the projected date, there should be a vote on what to do. Move the Release Date, or Move the Feature to the next Release Cycle. Those Rules should be clear to everyone, so noone has to argue or quarrel about what is a next release. That said/written please vote about how release planning should be considered in the future. I would consider the discussed road map to be the 3.0 road map, Norman and Stefano should be responsible for its development. Features that are wanted in 2.4 should be backported by the people that want it within 2.4 release. Noel and Vincenzo should be responsible fpr the 2.4 release. If there are Problems during backporting/migration of features Stefano and Norman should be available for helping, but should keep their focus on 3.0 So please step back from terms of throwing trunk on people and the like, and keep focus on the project. Clear the misunderstandings out, vote on release planning/cycles terminology. Keep focus on the project in favor of interpersonal dislikings. Again I know I am an Outsider, but still I hope you consider my suggestions to this project Kind regards Juergen Hoffmann --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]