Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I run Debian Stable. If I were to run Debian Testing I'd have much more up to date packages
available. Call me conservative I guess. On a positive note, Debian Stable, as far behind as it
is, has _much_ newer packages than RHEL and some other "stable" or "enterprise"
di
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I run Debian Stable. If I were to run Debian Testing I'd have much more up to date packages
available. Call me conservative I guess. On a positive note, Debian Stable, as far behind as it
is, has _much_ newer packages than RHEL and some other "stable" or "enterprise"
di
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I run Debian Stable. If I were to run Debian Testing I'd have much more up to date packages
available. Call me conservative I guess. On a positive note, Debian Stable, as far behind as it
is, has _much_ newer packages than RHEL and some other "stable" or "enterprise"
di
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/16/2010 7:18 AM:
> On 2010-06-16 7:56 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> For this last minor bug, I was a one percenter, had the right
>> combination--slow hardware plus mbox storage and full text
>> searches on very large mbox files.
>
> Right, now I remember...
>
> So, it
On 2010-06-16 7:56 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> For this last minor bug, I was a one percenter, had the right
> combination--slow hardware plus mbox storage and full text
> searches on very large mbox files.
Right, now I remember...
So, its working well for you now I presume (since you're still her
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/16/2010 6:34 AM:
> On 2010-06-16 7:29 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>> Once I installed it I almost immediately found problems with
>>> performance. I reported the symptoms here, and within a day or two
>>> Timo identified the cause relating to mbox processing and fixed
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/16/2010 6:29 AM:
> On 2010-06-16 1:15 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/15/2010 12:44 PM:
>>
>>> Waiting almost always keeps me from any major bugs from new packages
>>> (one exception was a minor update to mailman that changed directory
>>> loc
We're drifting quite OT here, but...
On 06/16/2010 08:29 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> Again - this is why I have never been inclined to even give debian a
> try... with gentoo, with a very few minor exceptions, the most I've ever
> had to wait was a few weeks...
>
If you want newer releases, yo
On 2010-06-16 7:29 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> Once I installed it I almost immediately found problems with
>> performance. I reported the symptoms here, and within a day or two
>> Timo identified the cause relating to mbox processing and fixed it.
>> It took a couple/three weeks IIRC before the
On 2010-06-16 1:15 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/15/2010 12:44 PM:
>
>> Waiting almost always keeps me from any major bugs from new packages
>> (one exception was a minor update to mailman that changed directory
>> locations), and still lets me stay up to date with the l
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/15/2010 12:44 PM:
> Waiting almost always keeps me from any major bugs from new packages
> (one exception was a minor update to mailman that changed directory
> locations), and still lets me stay up to date with the latest stable
> releases.
I waited "forever" to get
On 2010-06-15 1:26 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:30, Eric Rostetter
> wrote:
>> Quoting Veiko Kukk :
>>> I prefer "don't fix if it isn't broken" philosophy.
>> Reasonable, as long as the version you are running is still
>> supported...
> And if it isn't, you should upgrade
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:30, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting Veiko Kukk :
>
>> I prefer "don't fix if it isn't broken" philosophy.
>
> Reasonable, as long as the version you are running is still supported...
And if it isn't, you should upgrade. But when? Immediately? Or
later when an issue c
Quoting Veiko Kukk :
I prefer "don't fix if it isn't broken" philosophy.
Reasonable, as long as the version you are running is still supported...
I don't see that 1.2 is stable enought from what I have read from
this list and Changelog.
Some versions are, some are not... I've been running
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-06-15 6:57 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Too bad the Debian Dovecot maintainer isn't 'The Flash' in getting
binaries uploaded. For i386 anyway. He had the AMD64 1.2.11 binary
uploaded to backports within a week IIRC. Took something like 2 weeks
IIRC before he got the i3
On 2010-06-15 6:57 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Too bad the Debian Dovecot maintainer isn't 'The Flash' in getting
> binaries uploaded. For i386 anyway. He had the AMD64 1.2.11 binary
> uploaded to backports within a week IIRC. Took something like 2 weeks
> IIRC before he got the i386 binary uploade
> -Original Message-
> From: dovecot-bounces+arto.saraniva=artio@dovecot.org
> [mailto:dovecot-bounces+arto.saraniva=artio@dovecot.org] On Behalf
> Of Veiko Kukk
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:52 PM
> To: dovecot@dovecot.org
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Do
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/15/2010 5:27 AM:
> No software is bug free - thankfully, Timo is like 'The Flash' when it
> comes to fixing bugs with dovecot...
Too bad the Debian Dovecot maintainer isn't 'The Flash' in getting binaries
uploaded. For i386 anyway. He had the AMD64 1.2.11 binary up
On 06/15/2010 01:27 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Keeping current makes sure you take advantage of possibly unknown
bugfixes and/or security holes, and also means when asking for help you
won't get responses like 'that's already fixed in the current stable
version', not to mention (sometimes consider
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:05:51 +0300
Veiko Kukk articulated:
> On 06/14/2010 04:41 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > Isn't it enough to know that 1.2 is the current *stable* branch?
>
> I prefer "don't fix if it isn't broken" philosophy.
A true conservative.
Our ancestors use to feel that a sharpene
On 2010-06-15 4:05 AM, Veiko Kukk wrote:
> I prefer "don't fix if it isn't broken" philosophy.
I also subscribe to that philosophy, but there are limits.
Keeping current makes sure you take advantage of possibly unknown
bugfixes and/or security holes, and also means when asking for help you
won't
On 06/14/2010 04:41 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Isn't it enough to know that 1.2 is the current *stable* branch?
I prefer "don't fix if it isn't broken" philosophy.
I don't see that 1.2 is stable enought from what I have read from this
list and Changelog. There have been lots of bugfixes during
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 07:43, Veiko Kukk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been using successfully Dovecot 1.1.x for about a year now. It has
> been very stable.
> Now I'm uprading that same system to newer and more powerful hardware and I
> was wondering whether it is good idea or not to switch to Dove
On 2010-06-14 7:43 AM, Veiko Kukk wrote:
> Could anybody direct me to feature comparision document or explain
> here main differences betweeen thos two branches?
Isn't it enough to know that 1.2 is the current *stable* branch?
Personally, unless there was something about 2.0 that wasn't stable in
On 14.06.2010 14:43, Veiko Kukk wrote:
> Could anybody direct me to feature comparision document or
> explain here main differences betweeen thos two branches?
Check the release notes:
http://www.dovecot.org/doc/NEWS
and the fine manual on upgrading to 1.2:
http://wiki.dovecot.org/Upgrading/1.2
Hello,
I have been using successfully Dovecot 1.1.x for about a year now. It
has been very stable.
Now I'm uprading that same system to newer and more powerful hardware
and I was wondering whether it is good idea or not to switch to Dovecot
1.2.x series. Could anybody direct me to feature comp
26 matches
Mail list logo
