Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> 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've no idea what you call next-minor or anything else. This is a branch in
which I can put necessary fixes. If people want them, fine. If not,
consider it an interim fork to have something that works while we do the
various major re-developments that have been discussed.
> > 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
> 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?
I wanted to see the differences between what we used to have in 2.3.0, and
what we have now. The tag is stable, so I could compare against the tag
without that diff changing on me, and separately compare 2.3.1 to the 2.3
branch to see what else is different. I've been reviewing every line that
was changed.
> > 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 [...] 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 :-)
I didn't do anything to "find" it. The things are sitting in my log files.
I have a specific message (actually a couple of them), which are *tiny* and
yet easily reproduce the problem. I've experimented with expanding the
heap, reducing the number of concurrent delivery threads, etc., but none of
that resolved the problem. It is not a persistent OOM. You can see the OOM
get thrown, JAMES recovers, there is plenty of heap, and we start to rebuild
our resources (e.g., mailboxes that were discarded), and then the same
message hits and the OOM is thrown. It is very specifically linked to
sending a message to bellsouth.net that is has a dozen or more users
attached, and where we are getting some sort of partial failure.
> My personal preference is that you copy "v2.3" to "v2.4" branch
<<shrug>> I couldn't care less what it is called. The last time I put fixes
into JAMES, they were discarded, and our users get to deal with the
consequences of that action, so this time I'll create a separate branch. As
far as I'm concerned, it can be called JAMES-noel, and you can take whatever
you do or don't want from it. I really don't care. I just need something
stable to run in production while we work on trunk. Anyone else who wants
to benefit from it is welcome. If you guys want to vote it as a release,
and give it a number, fine. Otherwise, it's just code.
> and work there by backporting from trunk.
Yes, I was planning to backport, as I had before.
> we agreed in past we don't want diverging live branches
LOL Yeah, right. I'm the one who pushed that point, because some of us have
already had the joyful experience of having to merge things, but that horse
seems to be long out of the barn. With all of the many development branches
in the sandbox ... what else do you call some of the more active ones except
for branches ... it'll be a good year or more before things come back
together. Robert is working hard to make that somewhat less painful, so
we'll see.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
