Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot 1.1.x or 1.2, which way to go for Kolab Server?
Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 14:25 +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote: >> There was the dict-server startup problem, which we reported and which >> should be fixed now (I still need to test your fix). >> >> Then there are some (undocumented?) changes in the dict api (and the >> changed dict backend configuration). [...] > OK. I think most of the issues you'll find in 1.2 are things like these. > Either something works or it doesn't (mainly because I'm so lazy at > testing changes myself), but there shouldn't be any stability-related > problems. And these "doesn't work" bugs can be fixed quickly when > they're reported. This sounds very promising and fits with our decision to recommend our customer to build upon 1.2. cheers sascha -- Sascha Wilde OpenPGP key: 4BB86568 http://www.intevation.de/~wilde/ http://www.intevation.de/ Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück; AG Osnabrück, HR B 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner pgpHKx9H0sZNT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot 1.1.x or 1.2, which way to go for Kolab Server?
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:15:38 +0300 Timo Sirainen wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 13:08 +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote: > > was written the other day we started to use Dovecot 1.2 for our Kolab > > with Dovecot project, but it turned out that there are quite a bunch of > > issues with 1.2 (which is ok, as it hasn't even been announced as beta > > till now). > > I'd like to hear these issues, since I'm not aware of any v1.2-specific > bugs. > > > How far from being production ready is 1.2 in your view? > > Depends on how fast people report bugs to me.. I've been using it for my > mails without problems for weeks. And about 3 other people also reported > in the last few days that they're running it for their small mail > servers. Me too. --Frank Elsner
Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot 1.1.x or 1.2, which way to go for Kolab Server?
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 14:25 +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote: > Hi Timo, > > thanks for the reply, > > Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 13:08 +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote: > >> was written the other day we started to use Dovecot 1.2 for our Kolab > >> with Dovecot project, but it turned out that there are quite a bunch of > >> issues with 1.2 (which is ok, as it hasn't even been announced as beta > >> till now). > > > > I'd like to hear these issues, since I'm not aware of any v1.2-specific > > bugs. > > There was the dict-server startup problem, which we reported and which > should be fixed now (I still need to test your fix). > > Then there are some (undocumented?) changes in the dict api (and the > changed dict backend configuration). > > And then there are some more dict relates problems/changes causing the > metadata/annotations plugin to fail in certain situations -- Bernhard > Herzog will report/discuss them in detail soon, in case we decide to use > 1.2. > > So the stuff we stumbled upon was all dict related till now, but on the > other hand we haven't done much with 1.2 besides trying to get our > changes to work with it... OK. I think most of the issues you'll find in 1.2 are things like these. Either something works or it doesn't (mainly because I'm so lazy at testing changes myself), but there shouldn't be any stability-related problems. And these "doesn't work" bugs can be fixed quickly when they're reported. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot 1.1.x or 1.2, which way to go for Kolab Server?
Hi Timo, thanks for the reply, Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 13:08 +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote: >> was written the other day we started to use Dovecot 1.2 for our Kolab >> with Dovecot project, but it turned out that there are quite a bunch of >> issues with 1.2 (which is ok, as it hasn't even been announced as beta >> till now). > > I'd like to hear these issues, since I'm not aware of any v1.2-specific > bugs. There was the dict-server startup problem, which we reported and which should be fixed now (I still need to test your fix). Then there are some (undocumented?) changes in the dict api (and the changed dict backend configuration). And then there are some more dict relates problems/changes causing the metadata/annotations plugin to fail in certain situations -- Bernhard Herzog will report/discuss them in detail soon, in case we decide to use 1.2. So the stuff we stumbled upon was all dict related till now, but on the other hand we haven't done much with 1.2 besides trying to get our changes to work with it... >> How far from being production ready is 1.2 in your view? > > Depends on how fast people report bugs to me.. I've been using it for my > mails without problems for weeks. And about 3 other people also reported > in the last few days that they're running it for their small mail > servers. This sounds promising. >> How hard would it be to get the shared folder/namespace stuff in 1.1.x? >> (or for that matter: who much harder than to do it in 1.2?) > > It requires some mail-storage API changes. I'm not sure if those would > be easy to backport to v1.1. Ok, I'll report the results of our own evaluation, soon. cheers sascha -- Sascha Wilde OpenPGP key: 4BB86568 http://www.intevation.de/~wilde/ http://www.intevation.de/ Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück; AG Osnabrück, HR B 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner pgpVE4b7b8iSQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot 1.1.x or 1.2, which way to go for Kolab Server?
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 13:08 +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote: > was written the other day we started to use Dovecot 1.2 for our Kolab > with Dovecot project, but it turned out that there are quite a bunch of > issues with 1.2 (which is ok, as it hasn't even been announced as beta > till now). I'd like to hear these issues, since I'm not aware of any v1.2-specific bugs. > How far from being production ready is 1.2 in your view? Depends on how fast people report bugs to me.. I've been using it for my mails without problems for weeks. And about 3 other people also reported in the last few days that they're running it for their small mail servers. > How hard would it be to get the shared folder/namespace stuff in 1.1.x? > (or for that matter: who much harder than to do it in 1.2?) It requires some mail-storage API changes. I'm not sure if those would be easy to backport to v1.1. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
