Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
Unfortunately I guess that IMAP won't be included in next-minor or
next-major, but we can only expect to be able to do some steps in that 2
releases (it would be *really* cool if we were able to put experimental
unstable support for imap in next-major but this is not
Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Do you agree with one of these 2 plans? Have you, instead, a third
proposal (possibly including expected date to branch/date to release
and
expected feature list)?
As I said, let's go forward with trunk. (Exception: make hotfixes to
2.3 and
On 9/16/06, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Stefano,
Sorry, cannot parse this. You lost me way before you said that -1
should not be the next version number for James. I feel stupid. You
are using too much words for me to cope with. Do you have 3 or 4
Hi to all Developers,
I have been following this thread for some time now. Being a Person
that is only watching, I came to the conclusion that You as Developers
have a totally different understanding as of what should be a 2.4
Release.
Right now you are quarreling about things that should be
On 9/15/06, Jürgen Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi to all Developers,
I have been following this thread for some time now. Being a Person
that is only watching, I came to the conclusion that You as Developers
have a totally different understanding as of what should be a 2.4
Release.
As
Hi Stefano,
Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
So, do you think that current 2.3.0rc3 should be released as 3.0?
no. what is 2.3.0rc3 is, and stays 2.3.0rc3 and will be released as
2.3.0 possible Bugs within it should be released as 2.3.1
Main development (your roadmap to 2.4) should now be 3.0
Hi Bernd,
Bernd Fondermann schrieb:
... and probably common many others here at Apache. (Some are even
worse ;-)) It is sometimes painful, but this community is not driven
by project management, it is driven by _consent_. It's not always as
pragmatic as everyone would like to have it. And there
On 9/15/06, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
[...]
There is some truth in this. But Eclipse is driven by companies, it is
like a software company.
We are not this way. That does not mean we aren't successfull, but
this is not an objective opinion either ;-)
Jürgen Hoffmann wrote:
I still don't know what Vincenzo and Noel want to do with the
next-minor release so I'm not able to vote now the number of their
release. We also don't have a string roadmap for next-major release
(6 months) and I would be more inclined in using 2.x if we don't add
some
On 9/15/06, Jürgen Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bernd,
Bernd Fondermann schrieb:
That's really great. I'd guess you get some real value back for that!
At this point in time, the amount of value put into the project is much
much greater.
how can you say that?! you get other's and my
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Bernd, this was by no means to be understood as an offense or anything
against other active contributors on this project. This List is neither
complete nor a concrete suggestion. Replace the Names in the Lists with
A, B, C, and D.
-1. Not agreed. I favor all the
On 9/15/06, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Bernd, this was by no means to be understood as an offense or anything
against other active contributors on this project. This List is neither
complete nor a concrete suggestion. Replace the Names in the Lists with
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Let's at first work together on trunk and then decide to release (when
time is due but quite soon).
If there are developments which are not completed, ok. Lets disable
them, or mark them as experimental, but release what we have. Then,
let's move on.
I am not opposing
Hi Stefano, Hi Bernd,
Bernd, this was by no means to be understood as an offense or
anything
against other active contributors on this project. This List is
neither
complete nor a concrete suggestion. Replace the Names in the Lists
with
A, B, C, and D.
-1. Not agreed. I favor all the
On 9/15/06, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Let's at first work together on trunk and then decide to release (when
time is due but quite soon).
If there are developments which are not completed, ok. Lets disable
them, or mark them as experimental, but release
On 9/15/06, Jürgen Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Stefano, Hi Bernd,
this is exactly why there should be certain assignments ( I did not use
responsibilities with a purpose ;) ) I see two parties right now. One
that ones to do the big thing, work on the next major release, and the
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Do you agree with one of these 2 plans? Have you, instead, a third
proposal (possibly including expected date to branch/date to release and
expected feature list)?
As I said, let's go forward with trunk. (Exception: make hotfixes to
2.3 and release that as 2.3.1
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Stefano,
Sorry, cannot parse this. You lost me way before you said that -1
should not be the next version number for James. I feel stupid. You
are using too much words for me to cope with. Do you have 3 or 4
simple words summarizing your ideas?
Are you saying that, the
18 matches
Mail list logo
