Hi, So let me add some comments.. Am Samstag, den 22.07.2006, 18:56 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman: > Norman Maurer wrote: > > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > Stefano wrote: > > > > If we want to follow this roadmap I would avoid to commit anything 3.0 > > > > specific in trunk until we have a 2.3.0 final out. Then I would start > a > > > > 2.4.0 branch from the trunk of that moment and from that point we > would > > > > still have 2 active tree (2.4 branch and trunk for 3.0). > > > > > > I would not. Instead, I would rename the v2.3 branch to v2.4, after > > > creating the v2.3 tag. I would have no intention of maintaining v2.3.x > > > separately. v2.4 would be the maintanence for v2.3. And trunk would be > the > > > next major release. > > > > I whould try to get the 2.3 final first and "close" the 2.3 branch after > that. > > Final first, yes. But there is no need to maintain the branch after we are > done with it. We run `svn cp branches/v2.3 tags/RELEASE_2_3`, which gives > us a copy, then run `svn mv branches/v2.3 branches/v2.4` and we have renamed > the branch. If, for some reason, we ever needed a branches/v2.3, we can > copy the tag.
Ok i think we think about the same ;-) > > Remember: Subversion is not CVS. We have different, better, ways to do > things. > > > Then we should copy the 2.3 to 2.4 and [decide] what we want to have > > in 2.4 and copy the stuff from trunk. > > We're differing only in SVN mechanics, as described above. > See above .. > > I think we could put and should put more then fastfail and launcher in > > 2.4. Maybe support fastfail also in RemoteManager and Pop3 server ? > > What do you mean? And why? Has anyone ever reported problems that suggest > that we need fast-fail in either of those two? I don't know if those would > survive the high-value test. The advance of that whould be to allow easy integration of costum handlers and fitlers.. It was just a thought which raise on a talk to Stefano.. And the benefit of that whould maybe to share "technic" we use for handlers.. > > But what about all of the admin work that Bernd has been doing? I not test it yet .. but yes the spooling commands etc could easy integrate to 2.4. Like i said with the jmx i have no "expirence". But im not -1 if the others want to include it. > > Again, my suggestion is that v2.4 be focused on the low-risk, high-value > equation. This is a plan to focus development on v3, while providing a > means to put only the most valuable, compatible, and lower risk improvements > into a v2.4 release. Yes.. i agree but i think a 2.4 only should released if we can put some more new code to it.. I will commit my pop before smtp stuff to trunk the next day ( maybe days) this could also be a good feature for 2.4.. But plz let us release 2.3.0 final first before get to much in details about that. I think that should be the "highest" prio we should focus on > > --- Noel bye Norman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
