> Good! Attach some dates and we have a release plan! Right, but we are not a company and we advance with sparetime so we can simply decide the order of steps in the cycle and not dates.
> [...] > The alpha phase can be shortened if there are less features > still being put in. I think it is important to have a first > alpha release soon, along with a plan of what's still going > in and when. All of us agreed on this. We'll have an alpha release soon. > As for Loom, I am curious about the white space issue -- > whether it can be fixed before the James release. There might > be other 'little' issues like this that may turn out to be > nasty. So it should be thoroughly tested. I think that the container issue is MINOR and somewhat unrelated to the release. When you release a war application you declare the servlet containers that are able to run it but you don't "bind" your application to a specific container. I simply think that we should not add workarounds in our code to avoid bugs in the phoenix version we are currently distributing with james. I would prefer to bundle a newer container. And about phoenix being well-known: can you provide links of software currently using an unreleased phoenix release (either 4.0.4 we currently bundle or the trunk)? > Would it be an idea to release James with both Phoenix (not > perfect but well known) and Loom (better but more unknown), > with Phoenix the default? I personally don't like this option: people would start asking why we bundle 2 container, what are the differences and we don't have good answers. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
