Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Norman Maurer wrote:
Commit which noel made:
+0 Cause i not see a big problem in it . We have the problems with
couple services anyway in 2.3
Exactly.
Backport the complex one from trunk:
+ 1 Cause it is the better "solution" even it can intruduce more
problems cause it is a "big" patch.
I wouldn't mind, but it is a couple of hours of work to do the whole thing
right (and more code change == more risk). That seems a waste, since the
branch will (hopefully) be dead-ended. Also, there is a problem with it:
unless the user removes assembly.xml, JAMES won't restart. The patch I did is
entirely compatible with v2.3.0, including the existing XML, and is a drop-in
for the current SAR file.
--- Noel
I can do the backport if we agree that the full backport is better. I
always did my duties, so you shouldn't fear that I'll say what to do and
then start looking...
This message make me fear something else: when you say that next-minor
will be v2.3 + few selected backports from trunk you mean that you will
write differently the features or that you will backport the code "as
is" when possible?
As I said I'm +0 about a next-minor based on 2.3 and having few selected
backports from trunk, but I'm -0 to have features backported in a
different way: if we start having so different branches it will become a
mess.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
