Hi Benoit,
Ok, cool. I think we are making progress. 👍🏻 > Would it answer some of your concerns? Let me answer this first: yes. Thank you for patiently tolerating my persistence. 😀 > Well from what I recall, we had a nice community meeting answering that > very question. > > - We will rework product definition, boundaries and branding. Using > guice servers we will provide a basic/advanced/distributed server > - We will improve the build experience through Apache CI builds and > migrating to graddle. > - Also, some contributors are implementing the final RFC-8621 JMAP release. > > Maybe we should have a roadmap page somewhere so that people don't have > to read the DEV mailing list to find these pieces of information? That is indeed my intention, and why I am asking these questions. I am ok with referencing other artifacts, but I think it is important to publish the roadmap on the website. Of course, it can always change, that is fine. It is not a set contract that MUST be undertaken, but it ought to represent the current thoughts of the community. > >> On that note, I would propose that for the 4.0 release, we clearly indicate >> that Spring will **NOT** be available. > > +1, and a 4.0 would make the switch very clear. No ambiguity. Ok, cool! So I think we have just now opened up a path forward. > I believe the only work remaining toward this is > https://github.com/apache/james-project/pull/221 (and for other guice > servers) I will take a look. Thanks for pointing this out. >> It should be deprecated in an upcoming 3.x release, then “completely” >> eliminated in 4.0. (Perhaps some code could remain if some people really >> want it, but we need to make it clear in the “user contract" that it is not >> supported.) That would be precisely what a major release is for, IMO. > We discussed (can't find the thread though) some years ago about the > adoption of time based release for James server. Hmmmm. Intuitively, I am a bit skeptical, but if you ever find that discussion, I will read through it to hear the arguments. > Here we could maybe: > - Better communicate about the release calendar (why not having it on > the roadmap page?) > - Prior the release date, discuss the reach of this release (major vs > minor) and see how we are regarding roadmap items. > - Also, the release process needs to be run faster... Thank you for sharing these ideas. I will put my thoughts together and get back to this discussion in a few days. I have a few other things I need to attend to now. Cheers, =David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
