You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> on 2008/08/13 12:40:38 UTC
[mime4j] release preparation (packages / MIME4J-51)
About the repackaging (MIME4J-51) I think we almost have an agreement,
so I'd like to push this a little to understand if we can complete this
and avoid reverting this or releasing something in progress.
AFAICT the only pending issue is the "stream" package.
Niklas commented:
> * Rename the stream package io. MimeTokenStream is a stream too. It's
> a bit confusing to me that it isn't in the stream package.
I replied:
> I'm fine with "io" but maybe a better option would be
> streamfilters"/"inputstreams"/"inputfilters"/"filterinputstreams"/"filteris" so to make it more descriptive. Opinions?
My current preference is "streamfilter" (more descriptive than "io" but
shorter than "filterinputstreams"), but I'm happy with any name.
If I understand correctly there is consensus about the parser package.
The main concern remain from Bernd: are you happy with the javadoc
solution (overview.html) and the current structure?
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/mime4j-trunk/ws/trunk/target/site/apidocs/index.html
http://people.apache.org/~bago/mime4j/mime4j-51/graph-mime4j-package.gif
Oleg, I hope this summary let you understand what is the current status
of MIME4J-51 and the consensus around it.
I leave to you the decision about releasing without the refactoring
(revert MIME4J-51), release "as is", or see the answers about the
"stream" package and "complete it" before releasing.
If you decide anything and need help with action (e.g: revert the code)
just let me know. If you need help with our "tricky" m2 setup you can
find me in #james channel @freenode (and many IMs network.. ).
Here is a tutorial from Norman describing how we released mime4j 0.3:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/project/trunk/HOWTO_RELEASE.txt
I just fixed a couple of issues in the generated website (bad refereces
to the apidocs). I saw the "news" page would require some changes but I
don't know what to write. Maybe we can include the release notes text
there once you prepared it.
Here is the current "News and Status" page as built by Hudson:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/mime4j-trunk/ws/trunk/target/site/status.html
You can also see I added a "Related Projects" menu and linked
"httpmime". Please check it is ok for you and do your changes if you
have preferred land pages.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mime4j] release preparation (packages / MIME4J-51)
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Stefano Bagnara ha scritto:
> Oleg Kalnichevski ha scritto:
>> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 20:45 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 12:40 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>>>> About the repackaging (MIME4J-51) I think we almost have an agreement,
>>>>> so I'd like to push this a little to understand if we can complete
>>>>> this
>>>>> and avoid reverting this or releasing something in progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAICT the only pending issue is the "stream" package.
>>>>>
>>>>> Niklas commented:
>>>>>> * Rename the stream package io. MimeTokenStream is a stream too. It's
>>>>>> a bit confusing to me that it isn't in the stream package.
>>>>> I replied:
>>>>>> I'm fine with "io" but maybe a better option would be
>>>>>> streamfilters"/"inputstreams"/"inputfilters"/"filterinputstreams"/"filteris"
>>>>>> so to make it more descriptive. Opinions?
>>>>> My current preference is "streamfilter" (more descriptive than "io"
>>>>> but
>>>>> shorter than "filterinputstreams"), but I'm happy with any name.
>>>>>
>>>> +1 to renaming 'stream' as 'io'. We may end up having classes that are
>>>> related to IO but are not streams. IO sounds generic enough yet
>>>> descriptive.
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> Folks
>>
>> As far as I can tell no one objects the idea. If I hear no complaints,
>> I'll go ahead and rename the package and close MIME4J-51 tomorrow.
>
> +1
I was on mime4j (for the LICENSE issue) now, so I simply stole this job
from you and did it :-)
Release time.... !!!
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mime4j] release preparation (packages / MIME4J-51)
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Oleg Kalnichevski ha scritto:
> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 20:45 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 12:40 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>>> About the repackaging (MIME4J-51) I think we almost have an agreement,
>>>> so I'd like to push this a little to understand if we can complete this
>>>> and avoid reverting this or releasing something in progress.
>>>>
>>>> AFAICT the only pending issue is the "stream" package.
>>>>
>>>> Niklas commented:
>>>>> * Rename the stream package io. MimeTokenStream is a stream too. It's
>>>>> a bit confusing to me that it isn't in the stream package.
>>>> I replied:
>>>>> I'm fine with "io" but maybe a better option would be
>>>>> streamfilters"/"inputstreams"/"inputfilters"/"filterinputstreams"/"filteris" so to make it more descriptive. Opinions?
>>>> My current preference is "streamfilter" (more descriptive than "io" but
>>>> shorter than "filterinputstreams"), but I'm happy with any name.
>>>>
>>> +1 to renaming 'stream' as 'io'. We may end up having classes that are
>>> related to IO but are not streams. IO sounds generic enough yet
>>> descriptive.
>> +1
>>
>
> Folks
>
> As far as I can tell no one objects the idea. If I hear no complaints,
> I'll go ahead and rename the package and close MIME4J-51 tomorrow.
+1
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mime4j] release preparation (packages / MIME4J-51)
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 20:45 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 12:40 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> >> About the repackaging (MIME4J-51) I think we almost have an agreement,
> >> so I'd like to push this a little to understand if we can complete this
> >> and avoid reverting this or releasing something in progress.
> >>
> >> AFAICT the only pending issue is the "stream" package.
> >>
> >> Niklas commented:
> >> > * Rename the stream package io. MimeTokenStream is a stream too. It's
> >> > a bit confusing to me that it isn't in the stream package.
> >>
> >> I replied:
> >> > I'm fine with "io" but maybe a better option would be
> >> > streamfilters"/"inputstreams"/"inputfilters"/"filterinputstreams"/"filteris" so to make it more descriptive. Opinions?
> >>
> >> My current preference is "streamfilter" (more descriptive than "io" but
> >> shorter than "filterinputstreams"), but I'm happy with any name.
> >>
> >
> > +1 to renaming 'stream' as 'io'. We may end up having classes that are
> > related to IO but are not streams. IO sounds generic enough yet
> > descriptive.
>
> +1
>
Folks
As far as I can tell no one objects the idea. If I hear no complaints,
I'll go ahead and rename the package and close MIME4J-51 tomorrow.
Oleg
> >> If I understand correctly there is consensus about the parser package.
> >> The main concern remain from Bernd: are you happy with the javadoc
> >> solution (overview.html) and the current structure?
> >> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/mime4j-trunk/ws/trunk/target/site/apidocs/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~bago/mime4j/mime4j-51/graph-mime4j-package.gif
> >>
> >> Oleg, I hope this summary let you understand what is the current status
> >> of MIME4J-51 and the consensus around it.
> >>
> >> I leave to you the decision about releasing without the refactoring
> >> (revert MIME4J-51), release "as is", or see the answers about the
> >> "stream" package and "complete it" before releasing.
> >>
> >
> > In the worst case I see no harm in releasing things as they stand and
> > revisiting MIME4J-51 during the 0.5 development.
>
> +1
>
> release early, release often ;-)
>
> i see no reason why we can't push ahead quickly with a 0.5 once 0.4
> has been released. IMHO it should be easier to settled some arguments
> when we can use benchmarking.
>
> - robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mime4j] release preparation (packages / MIME4J-51)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 12:40 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> About the repackaging (MIME4J-51) I think we almost have an agreement,
>> so I'd like to push this a little to understand if we can complete this
>> and avoid reverting this or releasing something in progress.
>>
>> AFAICT the only pending issue is the "stream" package.
>>
>> Niklas commented:
>> > * Rename the stream package io. MimeTokenStream is a stream too. It's
>> > a bit confusing to me that it isn't in the stream package.
>>
>> I replied:
>> > I'm fine with "io" but maybe a better option would be
>> > streamfilters"/"inputstreams"/"inputfilters"/"filterinputstreams"/"filteris" so to make it more descriptive. Opinions?
>>
>> My current preference is "streamfilter" (more descriptive than "io" but
>> shorter than "filterinputstreams"), but I'm happy with any name.
>>
>
> +1 to renaming 'stream' as 'io'. We may end up having classes that are
> related to IO but are not streams. IO sounds generic enough yet
> descriptive.
+1
>> If I understand correctly there is consensus about the parser package.
>> The main concern remain from Bernd: are you happy with the javadoc
>> solution (overview.html) and the current structure?
>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/mime4j-trunk/ws/trunk/target/site/apidocs/index.html
>>
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~bago/mime4j/mime4j-51/graph-mime4j-package.gif
>>
>> Oleg, I hope this summary let you understand what is the current status
>> of MIME4J-51 and the consensus around it.
>>
>> I leave to you the decision about releasing without the refactoring
>> (revert MIME4J-51), release "as is", or see the answers about the
>> "stream" package and "complete it" before releasing.
>>
>
> In the worst case I see no harm in releasing things as they stand and
> revisiting MIME4J-51 during the 0.5 development.
+1
release early, release often ;-)
i see no reason why we can't push ahead quickly with a 0.5 once 0.4
has been released. IMHO it should be easier to settled some arguments
when we can use benchmarking.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mime4j] release preparation (packages / MIME4J-51)
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:40, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> The main concern remain from Bernd: are you happy with the javadoc
...it is more my opinion than a concern...
> solution (overview.html) and the current structure?
> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/mime4j-trunk/ws/trunk/target/site/apidocs/index.html
+1, that's ok. Although the link doesn't work for me since I don't
have a login for Hudson yet. But thank god it's open source ;-)
It would be nice to have MimeTokenStream also mentioned, but I guess I
should volunteer to add that. (see note above :-))
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mime4j] release preparation (packages / MIME4J-51)
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 12:40 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> About the repackaging (MIME4J-51) I think we almost have an agreement,
> so I'd like to push this a little to understand if we can complete this
> and avoid reverting this or releasing something in progress.
>
> AFAICT the only pending issue is the "stream" package.
>
> Niklas commented:
> > * Rename the stream package io. MimeTokenStream is a stream too. It's
> > a bit confusing to me that it isn't in the stream package.
>
> I replied:
> > I'm fine with "io" but maybe a better option would be
> > streamfilters"/"inputstreams"/"inputfilters"/"filterinputstreams"/"filteris" so to make it more descriptive. Opinions?
>
> My current preference is "streamfilter" (more descriptive than "io" but
> shorter than "filterinputstreams"), but I'm happy with any name.
>
+1 to renaming 'stream' as 'io'. We may end up having classes that are
related to IO but are not streams. IO sounds generic enough yet
descriptive.
> If I understand correctly there is consensus about the parser package.
> The main concern remain from Bernd: are you happy with the javadoc
> solution (overview.html) and the current structure?
> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/mime4j-trunk/ws/trunk/target/site/apidocs/index.html
>
>
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/mime4j/mime4j-51/graph-mime4j-package.gif
>
> Oleg, I hope this summary let you understand what is the current status
> of MIME4J-51 and the consensus around it.
>
> I leave to you the decision about releasing without the refactoring
> (revert MIME4J-51), release "as is", or see the answers about the
> "stream" package and "complete it" before releasing.
>
In the worst case I see no harm in releasing things as they stand and
revisiting MIME4J-51 during the 0.5 development.
> If you decide anything and need help with action (e.g: revert the code)
> just let me know. If you need help with our "tricky" m2 setup you can
> find me in #james channel @freenode (and many IMs network.. ).
>
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Cheers
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org