> What's the actual work required to complete Darrell's changes
> and the Avalon changes?
In my current working directory, a cvs diff -u -r branch_2_1_fcs is over
4MB. Ignoring generated artifacts, there are about 970K of changes, which
include things we would not want lost by blindly copying ove
Danny Angus wrote:
Stephen
Would a 2.2 incorporate the updates concerning the Avalon framework
(ComponentManager --> ServiceManager) and released cornerstone content?
No, I reckoned that Roy made a good case for simply promoting the current
state 2.2 to stable and cutting a release of it.
I'
ers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Versions and Builds
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:32:44 +
Stephen
> Would a 2.2 incorporate the updates concerning the Avalon framework
> (ComponentManager --> ServiceManager
Stephen
> Would a 2.2 incorporate the updates concerning the Avalon framework
> (ComponentManager --> ServiceManager) and released cornerstone content?
No, I reckoned that Roy made a good case for simply promoting the current
state 2.2 to stable and cutting a release of it.
I'm assuming that
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
A good point well made. Perhaps it would be wise to promote 2.2
to stable since we're unlikely to have a 3 release any time soon.
I'll put out a 2.2.0a16 based upon current CVS for testing if there are no
objections. It does NEED testing. There are new things in there, s
> > A good point well made. Perhaps it would be wise to promote 2.2
> > to stable since we're unlikely to have a 3 release any time soon.
I'll put out a 2.2.0a16 based upon current CVS for testing if there are no
objections. It does NEED testing. There are new things in there, such as
the DNS re
Danny Angus wrote:
Roy,
With the a-count now at 15 or 16, there has to be a lot of improvement
and
function that's not in 2.1.3.
The James Team should, I feel, be encouraged by the user feedback wanting
the project to progress and evolve. If it starts to annoy, then throw the
sharks a meal
Roy,
> With the a-count now at 15 or 16, there has to be a lot of improvement
and
> function that's not in 2.1.3.
> The James Team should, I feel, be encouraged by the user feedback wanting
> the project to progress and evolve. If it starts to annoy, then throw the
> sharks a meal in the form
harks a meal in the form of V2.2.0 and we'll be satisfied for a while ...
Regards,
Roy
>-Original Message-
>From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Versions and Builds
>
>
>> It ALREADY is a pretty neat product.
>
>I suspect this is the roo
table imap,
better management tools, etc, but with a few code alterations I've got it
working fine for now!
Daniel.
@slc.co.uk eh... I owe you ppl too much money :(
-Original Message-
From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 March 2004 11:59
To: James Users List
Subject: R
> It ALREADY is a pretty neat product.
I suspect this is the root of the perceived "problem", because there are no
serious defects in James there is little pressure to make a release, nor
for James to undergo major change.
We have got ideas, but there is no urgency about implementing them, we
michael wrote:
I am a ICT HOD at a secondary school where we do a AVCE in networking,
and use JAMES, which the students install as service for an imaginary
network setup. Perhaps I could ask some of my students to helpout with
user documentation. Would this be of any use?
We welcome all contributio
Message-
From: Serge Knystautas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:12 PM
To: James Users List
Subject: Re: Versions and Builds
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:01:30 -
"Roy Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi Jerry,
>It ALREADY is a pretty neat
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:33:41 -
"Roy Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
.. thanks Serge. If I ever graduate from James-101 then
maybe I'll be in a
position to offer some assistance - although it would be
restricted to the
documentation area I think.
Like you said, we need help with docume
.. thanks Serge. If I ever graduate from James-101 then maybe I'll be in a
position to offer some assistance - although it would be restricted to the
documentation area I think.
Couple more questions for you if I may:
1) Will the merge and next stable cut be a 2.x or 3.0 ? Obviously not
crucial,
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:01:30 -
"Roy Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi Jerry,
It ALREADY is a pretty neat product. It APPEARS to have a
future direction
of enhancement which looks good. HOWEVER, I think you
really need to cut a
stable version of 2.2 and get that issued. Additionally,
st'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Versions and Builds
Sorry for my confusion. But things still aren't making sense:
In the changelog, it says "Version 2.2.0 expected release June 2003"
It also says "Version 2.1.3 released May 2003"
If you click on James JavaDoc, i
J Malcolm wrote:
> Has development of james ceased?
Nope! Hop over to the server-dev list if you need reassurance.
> Can you clarify the version/release schedule for me?
Skipping the history of how we got where we are.
v3.0a1 is experimental.
v2.2.0a15 is evolutionary.
The next version, which
Sorry for my confusion. But things still aren't making sense:
In the changelog, it says "Version 2.2.0 expected release June 2003"
It also says "Version 2.1.3 released May 2003"
If you click on James JavaDoc, it gives you javadoc for "James 3.0a1"
It seems strange that the latest and greatest
19 matches
Mail list logo
