On 7/12/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin ha scritto:
> On 7/12/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just think that Robert should tell us the better moment wrt him IMAP
>> work. And maybe we could even release a 3.0M1 without IMAP enabled by
>> default.
>
> the IMAP code used by default has not change. this code base has
> issues with at least two modern clients but is ok (but limited) for
> older ones. the experimental rewrite is not used by default.
I admit I had no time to follow all of your patches. I read them one by
one, but I don't get the whole picture of changes between the
"monolitic" imapserver module and the new experimental modules.
The "imapserver" was already experimental and we have no previous
releases including it, so I think we should try to find an answer to
your refactoring and keep only one of the 2 imapserver.
the two code bases should be identical in behaviour ATM but i cannot
prove it until i've completed coding a solid IMAP client library :-/
Can you summarize main differences between imapserver and the new
experimental*+imap* modules ?
ATM only refactoring
from a design perspective, in the experimental module each command has
been split into encoding, decoding and processing classes with
messages passed between them.
>> > Stefano Bagnara-2 wrote:
>> >> Unfortunately, as far as I understand it currently no one of the
>> active
>> >> committers is willing to prepare a release from the current code
>> (and to
>> >> collect agreements for this).
>> >>
>> > But isn't the entire process automated?
>> > I mean it already runs nightly. It would be only required to stick a
>> 3.0M1
>> > label, tag that version and publish on the main site the collected JIRA
>> > changes (there's a plug-in that does that automatically).
>>
>> Yes, but at Apache releasing means something more than building: we have
>> to take care of any legal issue with code we release and we have to vote
>> and agree on the number and the date. I know this seems to be some easy
>> stuff, but in my experience it isn't.
>
> +1
>
> i'll see if i can find time to review the code base and improve the build
I locally upgraded cornerstone/avalon/excalibur and the whole dependency
model for maven2. I didn't commit it yet because I found an issue with
latest cornerstone release and I'm now waiting a 2.2.2 release from the
excalibur guys.
Btw this is not a blocking/important issue for a milestone release.
sounds good
>> > Sorry but shoudn't be this reversed? I.e. developers to convince
>> users about
>> > the stability of their project and the importance to use it?
>>
>> LOL, you are right. Unfortunately I don't have any tool to convince
>> others that the code in trunk was not so bad and not stable as Noel (or
>> anyone else) thought.
>
> different people have different motivations
I'd add: "sometime the motivation is collecting different motivations", ;-)
hehehe
<snip>
I didn't get if "you" it's me or Toni.
toni
If it's me, I'm willing to help (even if I have limited spare time
currently) only by request: I won't be the releaser, and I won't push
anything. If someone want me to update the website (e.g: generate 3.0
pages, add news/downloads for the milestone), to help fixing some bug,
to explain some feature we introduced and so on he/they will have to ask.
the offer is appreciated
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
