On Jan 22, 2008 9:09 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > On Jan 22, 2008 6:39 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> > >>>>> next-minor (2.4 ?): this is Noel field. My opinion is unchanged. IMHO we > >>>>> should work on trunk because backporting to the old structure IMHO is > >>>>> too much work and does not make sense. BTW if anyone is willing to work > >>>>> on this, well, why not: the more we release the better. > >>> depends on the feature: i was wondering about backporting components > >>> rather than source. i suspect that this should be much easier. > >> I'm not sure I understand the "backporting components". > >> > >> v2.3 branch is not "modularized" like trunk and there are many changes > >> at the api level between v2.3 and trunk, because we tried to fix up some > >> service interface to better modularize the components. > > > > (moving code around into modules really isn't a substantive issue and > > is easy to reverse) > > I will rephrase it as: I don't get why backporting to a v2.3 branch > should be easier than choosing a bunch of modules from trunk. > Or, alternatively, I can ask a question: What, in current trunk modules > (exluding *imap* and *mailbox*) should not be backported? core plus potentially any module depending on core ;-) this really means tacking the modularisation more seriously and adding a more sophisticated component system - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
