On Jan 21, 2008 11:49 PM, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So we're looking for a plan to sort out trunk, with realistic milestones then?
sorting out trunk would take a lot of energy but may not be necessary if we branch then prune (i have some more comments related to this but i'll add them to the module thread) > The first milestone should be 3.0.0M1 an alpha branch of selected > trunk changes for review, but never realistically destined to be the > stable 3.0.0? it's a milestone rather than an alpha. we don't have alpha quality code that we intend to fix up and release but a mixed bag which we cannot promise will be compatible with an eventual 3.0 release > To be followed by successive milestone releases until we have a > radically new James architecture. for 3.0.0 Yes/No? sounds good to me > On Jan 21, 2008 11:10 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Danny Angus ha scritto: > > > Hi, > > > Roadmap ... we need to do this to give ourselves some direction. > > > > > > The two questions are "what" we should release and "when" we should > > > release it. > > > > > > I just want to focus on "what" first, we'll look at "when" once we know > > > what. > > > > > > We have two targets, an incremental release of the current live > > > version, which we will call "next minor" and the next major release > > > from James trunk which we will call "next major" > > > > Welcome back to the labels ;-) > > > > > So... > > > > > > What do *you* want to include in each of these targets? > > > > 2.3.2: we have no outstanding bugs on 2.3.1, so I don't think we have to > > plan a 2.3.2 right now. > > > > next-minor (2.4 ?): this is Noel field. My opinion is unchanged. IMHO we > > should work on trunk because backporting to the old structure IMHO is > > too much work and does not make sense. BTW if anyone is willing to work > > on this, well, why not: the more we release the better. depends on the feature: i was wondering about backporting components rather than source. i suspect that this should be much easier. > > I think a better plan is to try to release at least one milestone from > > trunk and depending on the feedback we'll have on the milestones we'll > > be able to decide whether it's better to make more milestones from trunk > > or it is better to branch for consolidation. > > > > I don't speak about IMAP (I think Robert will tell us what he thinks > > about IMAP modules and their status) IMAP is better but isn't ready >> but I think most of the other > > modules in trunk are ready (since 13 months) for a milestone/alpha/beta > > release and they already provide a lot of new features compared to > > 2.3.1. Most of the code in trunk should be storage and config.xml > > compatible with 2.3.1. i'm not sure how true is (there are a number of features touched by IMAP which aren't ready) i think that it would be useful to compose a list. which new features: * ready for full release? * beta? * alpha? > > Unfortunately now I cannot be active as I was 13 months ago when I > > proposed to cut a milestone from that code, but this is anyway my > > opinion on the code we have. > > > > Most of our "SNAPSHOT" dependencies have been upgraded to finals in the > > past year, now we only have mailet, jsieve and mime4j as snapshot > > dependencies. Maybe we should try to cut releases for that products > > before trying with Server (but this is not mandatory). yes, this is the first step - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
