Hi guys,
Joachim Draeger schrieb: > Hi Bernd, > > Am Samstag, den 16.12.2006, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Bernd Fondermann: > > >>> its now about 4 weeks ago when Stefano and me posted a roadmap proposal >>> to the mailling list. Nothing concrete happen since this posting. I >>> really whould like to get this odd roadmap stuff done now to focus on >>> working on the next release. Without the roadmap it is impossible for me >>> to help the project and work on concrete things. >>> So what the stuff other people want to see in next release ? Is the >>> proposed stuff ok ? >>> >> For the next release I would like to >> + have basic (whatever than means) IMAP stable, perfoming and >> functional, and well integrated with the rest of James architecture. >> > > That would introduce probably some incompatibility. I'm fine with this > if there is a majority. > I always try to let the new stuff run beside the old one without > changing anything. I work this way only because I see it as problematic > in this project to introduce big changes. > > >> + have more online management and monitoring features done >> > > Yes, that is very important and will broaden significantly the target > group. > Be transparent and less cryptic. > > +1 >> + have a Spring distribution besides the other packages >> > > Let's do it! :-) > > If im not wrong then there is allready a sandbox on which joachim is workin. >>> I whould also like to focus on a branch date. Maybe branch in 2/2007 ? >>> >> I would rather not call for a "branch date", but focus on "feature >> freeze" and "release" dates. >> Branching is just a technical thing which can be completely omitted if >> we release from trunk. >> > > There seemed to be a consensus that the next release should be > config/storage compatible. This compatibility limits the introducing of > new features. > If we want to have a compatible release we IMO need the branch to be > able to work on non compatible features in trunk while stabilizing the > branch. > You seem to favor a non-compatible release. (So do I and some others > that saw the compatible one as a compromise) > In this case I agree with you that we should continue working in trunk > and decide later whether a branch is needed or not. > I agree with you.. But if we want to break compatibility we should do it carefully so no further compatibilily changes have to be done in near future. > Well, as the last approach has been beaten down that unkind, (which > still makes me very sad) we need possibly a new vote for a direction. > > James often makes the impression to me to be headless and indecisive. > That makes me feel unsure and uncomfortable if this is the right place > for my open source work. Too much energy gets wasted. For me this is > some kind of a last chance before I will draw the conclusions. > > I appeal to the James community and to the PMC to make again all > assiduous efforts to come out of this mess. Something has to change > right now. > I agree. We have to change something... The first things we have to do now is: * Define if the next release should be compatible or not * Define a clear roadmap * Define a version number ( not so importent for me , but it seems its importent for others) * Define feature freeze date/ branch date / release date After that i hope we all can focus and work on concrete stuff. > >> And I would like to have us release from trunk, because it keeps us >> focused on testing and finalizing. >> >> Would a release target date end of Q2/Y07 be OK? >> > > This is one of the options I can agree on. Because it's quite a long > period we could maybe introduce milestones. We are all voluntaries, no > one will force us to meet deadlines. > But clear targets are important for humans. So yes, define a release > date, and maybe dates for alpha and beta releases. We are free to change > them whenever we think it's reasonable. > +1 > Joachim > > > > bye Norman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
