On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Serge Knystautas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Bernd Fondermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See above regarding Postage. And keep in mind that I've used
Serge Knystautas wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what I propose is that we setup a JAMES zone, and start to deploy JAMES
in that zone. That will be published in the DNS, and quite shortly we
should start to see a lot of connections coming
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
That sort of thinking led Stefano to push to rush out v2.3.0 over my
objections that there was a critical memory leak.
This is an obvious
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
i can happily live without any more JAMES server releases. the plan to
release JAMES as a series of loosely coupled embeddable libraries
works very well for me. but from a community perspective, being able
to work together to create new JAMES server releases
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
Serge Knystautas wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what I propose is that we setup a JAMES zone, and start to deploy
JAMES
in that zone. That will be published in the DNS, and quite shortly we
should start to
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
Serge Knystautas wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So what I propose is that we setup a JAMES zone, and start to deploy
JAMES
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What domain can we host for the tests?
I would like to donate a domain, for example james-testing.org. I
would be able to admin the nameserver according to our needs.
Good. The more
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
i can happily live without any more JAMES server releases. the plan to
release JAMES as a series of loosely coupled embeddable libraries
works very well for me. but from a community
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
i can happily live without any more JAMES server releases. the plan to
release JAMES as a series of loosely coupled embeddable libraries
works very
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
i can happily live without any more JAMES server releases.
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you say it again with different words? (concrete checklist/roadmap
would be perfect to avoid my misunderstanding ;-) ).
1 Isn't it time we did a release?
2 [PROPOSAL] Prepare
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you say it again with different words? (concrete checklist/roadmap
would be perfect to avoid my
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
That sort of thinking led Stefano to push to rush out v2.3.0 over my
objections that there was a critical memory leak.
This is an obvious attempt to discredit other
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The proposal is based on the fact that every message delivered to the
zone
will be disposable spam. Therefore, unlike performing some sort of faux
release
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what I propose is that we setup a JAMES zone, and start to deploy JAMES
in that zone. That will be published in the DNS, and quite shortly we
should start to see a lot of connections coming to it as millions of
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Bernd Fondermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See above regarding Postage. And keep in mind that I've used Postal and
Rabid for isolated testing in the past, but it (too) is not
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
That sort of thinking led Stefano to push to rush out v2.3.0 over my
objections that there was a critical memory leak.
This is an obvious attempt to discredit other committers and bring back
the old hostile atmosphere we were able to
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
I don't trust 2.3.1 more than TRUNK or any other James snapshot.
That's really too bad, since we know from empirical experience that JAMES
2.3 + my patches hold up to years of real-world production loads. We have
some justification that 2.3.x
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
That sort of thinking led Stefano to push to rush out v2.3.0 over my
objections that there was a critical memory leak.
This is an obvious attempt to discredit other committers and bring back
the old hostile atmosphere we were able to overcome
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The proposal is based on the fact that every message delivered to the
zone
will be disposable spam. Therefore, unlike performing some sort of faux
release without any basis, we will be testing in a risk-free
environment.
Every message can be
to improve my opinion of said person's competence to
make that judgement. Frankly, I consider a milestone from trunk to be
less than a bad joke, and would vote -1 on the grounds that no one can
consider trunk even close to being supportable. You and Danny have recently
said almost the same thing
not trustworthy. Anyone who would consider releasing from
trunk would do little to improve my opinion of said person's competence to
make that judgement. Frankly, I consider a milestone from trunk to be
less than a bad joke, and would vote -1 on the grounds that no one can
consider trunk
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
I don't trust 2.3.1 more than TRUNK or any other James snapshot.
That's really too bad, since we know from empirical experience that JAMES
2.3 + my patches hold up to years of real-world production loads. We have
some justification that 2.3.x are OK because we're not
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
That sort of thinking led Stefano to push to rush out v2.3.0 over my
objections that there was a critical memory leak.
LOL
very funny :-)
Stefano
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
. releasing code as
libraries rather than a monolithic application also reduces the effort
required to review a release.
I'm not 100% sure but my understanding is that at least me, Norman and
Bernd are +1 about releasing a milestone from trunk. I think what we
miss is just a release manager, not the 3 +1
releasing a milestone from trunk. I think what we miss is
just a release manager, not the 3 +1 ;-)
indeed, I am +1.
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
26 matches
Mail list logo
