robert burrell donkin ha scritto: > On 7/12/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I just think that Robert should tell us the better moment wrt him IMAP >> work. And maybe we could even release a 3.0M1 without IMAP enabled by >> default. > > the IMAP code used by default has not change. this code base has > issues with at least two modern clients but is ok (but limited) for > older ones. the experimental rewrite is not used by default.
I admit I had no time to follow all of your patches. I read them one by one, but I don't get the whole picture of changes between the "monolitic" imapserver module and the new experimental modules. The "imapserver" was already experimental and we have no previous releases including it, so I think we should try to find an answer to your refactoring and keep only one of the 2 imapserver. Can you summarize main differences between imapserver and the new experimental*+imap* modules ? >> > Stefano Bagnara-2 wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, as far as I understand it currently no one of the >> active >> >> committers is willing to prepare a release from the current code >> (and to >> >> collect agreements for this). >> >> >> > But isn't the entire process automated? >> > I mean it already runs nightly. It would be only required to stick a >> 3.0M1 >> > label, tag that version and publish on the main site the collected JIRA >> > changes (there's a plug-in that does that automatically). >> >> Yes, but at Apache releasing means something more than building: we have >> to take care of any legal issue with code we release and we have to vote >> and agree on the number and the date. I know this seems to be some easy >> stuff, but in my experience it isn't. > > +1 > > i'll see if i can find time to review the code base and improve the build I locally upgraded cornerstone/avalon/excalibur and the whole dependency model for maven2. I didn't commit it yet because I found an issue with latest cornerstone release and I'm now waiting a 2.2.2 release from the excalibur guys. Btw this is not a blocking/important issue for a milestone release. >> > Sorry but shoudn't be this reversed? I.e. developers to convince >> users about >> > the stability of their project and the importance to use it? >> >> LOL, you are right. Unfortunately I don't have any tool to convince >> others that the code in trunk was not so bad and not stable as Noel (or >> anyone else) thought. > > different people have different motivations I'd add: "sometime the motivation is collecting different motivations", ;-) >> I think the only solution will come from the community: your message is >> an help. Other users/developers could try helping, too. > > +1 > >> What there is in trunk is really not important compared to the >> community: we need again an active/live community, then we can discuss >> about trunk and how to release. > > +1 > > if you think that there should be release and are willing to help work > towards one then it might well happen > > - robert I didn't get if "you" it's me or Toni. If it's me, I'm willing to help (even if I have limited spare time currently) only by request: I won't be the releaser, and I won't push anything. If someone want me to update the website (e.g: generate 3.0 pages, add news/downloads for the milestone), to help fixing some bug, to explain some feature we introduced and so on he/they will have to ask. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
