Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Slightly more than a month ago I wrote a roadmap, here is an update for
people that has not time for a day to day oversight.
And I disagreed with you then, and so did others, and I am really getting
tired of decision by message volume. I don't believe that I am alone in
that sentiment.
I don't know what's the problem with you.
And I don't know the meaning of "decision by message volume".
My message was simply a status update on a set of features I proposed 1
month ago to be included in what I called "next-major" release. Active
committers did some progress so I decided to give an update.
I don't understand what exactly you "disagree".
Trunk should be JAMES v3.0. No major concerns at the moment to discuss.
JAMES v2.4 should be incremental changes to the newly released JAMES v2.3.
We can even release concurrently, supporting JAMES v2 and JAMES v3 for as
long as we need the need.
I don't agree with your version numbers, but if you can read my message
you will find that I never talked about 2.4 or 3.0, I simply updated a
list of issues I described in a previous post and I left the subject
unchanged.
I just started a vote to have a better overview on what we can do about
next-minor and next-major.
We'll vote for the numbers later.
Ironically, to comment on an old claim, most of what I want to work on is
for JAMES v3, but we still need to support our existing user base.
--- Noel
As you proposed the "next-minor" (branch 2.3 and add backport few
features from 2.4) please feel free to write the same status update for
this goal.
I simply did my duties.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
