Noel J. Bergman ha scritto: > I'm looking at a defect (one or more, but seemingly related) in the current > release code, so I'll be forking a branch that is maintainable.
Is this "next-minor" or something new? If it is next-minor (delayed 6 months), then simply go ahead, we already agreed on it. > I have already generated a complete diff between 2.3.0 and 2.3.1 to see what > was done to the code and packaging, and stripped out the licensing changes > so that the substantive changes are more apparent. I don't understand why did you need to compare 2.3.0 to 2.3.1 for a new branch: am I missing something? You will branch from "v2.3" and not from build_2.3.0, right? > Other than fixing outstanding defects, adding the per-IP connection support, > and fixing what appears to be a problem related to partial delivery in the > face of exceptions (I'm seeing problems specifically with Yahoo! -- which we > already know doesn't do the right thing -- and bellsouth), one of which is > resulting in an OOM exception no matter how big a heap, nor how few remote > delivery threads, is there anything on anyone's wish list for a 2.working > version? My only request is that you open a JIRA issue (or post a message here) for the OOM exception ASAP and that you explain us what did you find about this OOM issue :-) My personal preference is that you copy "v2.3" to "v2.4" branch and work there by backporting from trunk. If you write any code specific to v2.4 and not being written in trunk first, please explain why (as we agreed in past we don't want diverging live branches). Stefano PS: I'm happy to see some new activity from you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
