On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 03:43, Ilja Booij wrote: > Aaron Stone wrote: > >I agree with you, and (Ilja better warm up your flamethrower...) I don't > >think > >that DBMail was ready for the release candidate phase when it started. My > >take > >on it was that Ilja was looking to put the squeeze onto the broken parts of > >the delivery chain and get me to start making it work consistently. As it > >turned out, I had a lot of wrong assumptions and Ilja saved the day. > > > I guess the process on my side was something like: > "This all works for me, we want 2.0, let's bring out a Release Candidate". > > And after that, things turned out to be broken and we had to change a > lot of things.. > > So.. what it came down to is lack of planning and lack of good testing > on my side. > > I guess only our last two RC's can be really called Release Candidates.
Not if we are still planning on making changes like table names and command line args. These are fairly major changes that make things incompatible with previous releases. I agree they are improvements and we do want to do them. I'm not sure if we should add them now, or just release 2.0 and add them later. But certainly we should never have started calling our releases RC's if we were even going to consider these chagnes. BTW, I think the command line changes are more important than the table name changes. I would rather wait for the ability to specify a table prefix in dbmail.conf > > I'm weighing long term annoyance for lots of people > > vs. short term breakage for not so many people. I understand, my only point is that if we still want to make these changes, then we should have never said we were in RC mode, nor should we even be in beta mode, since beta implies feature freeze. Also, I think it's folly to assume a couple of changes make that much of a difference. I think dbmail is already very good, yes it has some warts, but they will get fixed. I also think it's folly to think that once we release 2.0 a flood of users will suddenly flock to us. > for 2.0, we'd only like to see 2 changes: > 1. table names prefixed with 'dbmail_' > 2. command line options sane. Do we? If we change the table names, are we sure we will catch all the code that references them? Are we sure that all the SQL will still work? Do we then need to change the migration scripts? None of this is impossible, but if we are going to thow these changes in and release in a week, then we are asking for problems.
