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 "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> on 2006/06/16 01:26:15 UTC
2.3 Beta 2 milestone?
If you run
svn log -r HEAD:409032
you will see what has changed since we put out beta 1. I think that we are
in good shape to put out beta 2. I don't know if anyone wants to call it
release candidate 1 or not.
I'd like to post the next milestone before leaving for Europe on Monday, so
this is a call for comments. Any more changes coming?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: 2.3 Beta 2 milestone?
Posted by Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini <vi...@praxis.it>.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> I also don't think that the default use of db and file we have now is
> the best thing.
>
> We have *dbfile* for inbox and spool repositories.
> We have *file* for default repository destinations (see ToRepository
> mailet)
> We have *file* for the outgoing spool repository.
>
> Imho we should move to dbfile everything if we decide to have that as
> the default.
>
> I don't like having the main spool as dbfile and outgoing as file.
>
>
> My vote is +1 to move everything to file, db or dbfile.
>
> I don't have a specific preference for one of them.
> I use db only but it has problems with very big file.
> Maybe new users would understand better the file only or db only than
> dbfile (dbfile is harder to manage at hand)
> Maybe dbfile is the best compromise between performance and stability
> (maybe we should confirm this using Postage)
>
My vote is +1 to move everything to file, +0.5 to db, as both are the
easiest to understand for a novice as you said, suggesting clearly
somewhere in config.xml that, for production, the best one is dbfile.
Vincenzo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: 2.3 Beta 2 milestone?
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Norman Maurer wrote:
> I just reopen a stopper bug! So we must fix it before we should make any
> new release.
I think I found the bug and wrote a test and the fix for it.
The bug was probably there since r385090 (march 2006) with more or less
reproducibility due to other changes.
I just committed it to the trunk and I'm preparing a test binary build
(2.3 branch + patch) for Lauren to confirm it works.
Please review it and backport to 2.3 before releasing the next beta.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: 2.3 Beta 2 milestone?
Posted by Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini <vi...@praxis.it>.
There is/was no criticism, just willing do exactly what you say and we
started doing: concentrate on testing for some while :-) .
Vincenzo
Norman Maurer wrote:
>I just download the testbuild and installed it. The problems are gone!
>I backported it ..
>
>Anyway.. After seeing this "critical" bug im a bit scared of release a
>RC now. We "ALL" must test the current code more and should add more
>junit test! Don't get me wrong .. i don'T want piss anyone. But i can't
>really understand why noone before notice such a critical bug ? Noone
>tests the latest releases ?
>
>And this is also why we "need" Stefano and should not critism all the
>work he did in his last commits..
>
>So i think we should add more junit test at all. Im not so familar with
>the james code base to write junit test for core functions etc yet. This
>is why i start to do what i can now on junit tests. This is the mailet
>and matcher junit test. I hope this will change later if i more
>understand the james architecture ;-)
>
>Anyway this is not a critism at a specific person.. it goes to all of
>use.
>
>bye
>Norman
>
>
>Am Freitag, den 16.06.2006, 19:04 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
>
>
>>Norman Maurer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I just reopen a stopper bug! So we must fix it before we should make any
>>>new release.
>>>
>>>
>>I think I found the bug and wrote a test and the fix for it.
>>The bug was probably there since r385090 (march 2006) with more or less
>>reproducibility due to other changes.
>>
>>I just committed it to the trunk and I'm preparing a test binary build
>>(2.3 branch + patch) for Lauren to confirm it works.
>>
>>Please review it and backport to 2.3 before releasing the next beta.
>>
>>Stefano
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>>
>>!EXCUBATOR:1,4492e4df43371913355235!
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: 2.3 Beta 2 milestone?
Posted by Norman Maurer <nm...@byteaction.de>.
I just download the testbuild and installed it. The problems are gone!
I backported it ..
Anyway.. After seeing this "critical" bug im a bit scared of release a
RC now. We "ALL" must test the current code more and should add more
junit test! Don't get me wrong .. i don'T want piss anyone. But i can't
really understand why noone before notice such a critical bug ? Noone
tests the latest releases ?
And this is also why we "need" Stefano and should not critism all the
work he did in his last commits..
So i think we should add more junit test at all. Im not so familar with
the james code base to write junit test for core functions etc yet. This
is why i start to do what i can now on junit tests. This is the mailet
and matcher junit test. I hope this will change later if i more
understand the james architecture ;-)
Anyway this is not a critism at a specific person.. it goes to all of
use.
bye
Norman
Am Freitag, den 16.06.2006, 19:04 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
> Norman Maurer wrote:
> > I just reopen a stopper bug! So we must fix it before we should make any
> > new release.
>
> I think I found the bug and wrote a test and the fix for it.
> The bug was probably there since r385090 (march 2006) with more or less
> reproducibility due to other changes.
>
> I just committed it to the trunk and I'm preparing a test binary build
> (2.3 branch + patch) for Lauren to confirm it works.
>
> Please review it and backport to 2.3 before releasing the next beta.
>
> Stefano
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
> !EXCUBATOR:1,4492e4df43371913355235!
Re: 2.3 Beta 2 milestone?
Posted by Norman Maurer <nm...@byteaction.de>.
I just reopen a stopper bug! So we must fix it before we should make any
new release.
bye
Norman
Am Freitag, den 16.06.2006, 11:35 +0200 schrieb Vincenzo Gianferrari
Pini:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> > I also don't think that the default use of db and file we have now is
> > the best thing.
> >
> > We have *dbfile* for inbox and spool repositories.
> > We have *file* for default repository destinations (see ToRepository
> > mailet)
> > We have *file* for the outgoing spool repository.
> >
> > Imho we should move to dbfile everything if we decide to have that as
> > the default.
> >
> > I don't like having the main spool as dbfile and outgoing as file.
> >
> >
> > My vote is +1 to move everything to file, db or dbfile.
> >
> > I don't have a specific preference for one of them.
> > I use db only but it has problems with very big file.
> > Maybe new users would understand better the file only or db only than
> > dbfile (dbfile is harder to manage at hand)
> > Maybe dbfile is the best compromise between performance and stability
> > (maybe we should confirm this using Postage)
> >
> My vote is +1 to move everything to file, +0.5 to db, as both are the
> easiest to understand for a novice as you said, suggesting clearly
> somewhere in config.xml that, for production, the best one is dbfile.
>
> Vincenzo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
> !EXCUBATOR:1,44927b6c43377175614442!
Re: 2.3 Beta 2 milestone?
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
I almost agree with Bernd.
I would like to add that here
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
we have 4 unresolved issues.
Before we make an RC1 we should have fixed all the known issues or moved
them to 2.4.
I also don't think that the default use of db and file we have now is
the best thing.
We have *dbfile* for inbox and spool repositories.
We have *file* for default repository destinations (see ToRepository mailet)
We have *file* for the outgoing spool repository.
Imho we should move to dbfile everything if we decide to have that as
the default.
I don't like having the main spool as dbfile and outgoing as file.
My vote is +1 to move everything to file, db or dbfile.
I don't have a specific preference for one of them.
I use db only but it has problems with very big file.
Maybe new users would understand better the file only or db only than
dbfile (dbfile is harder to manage at hand)
Maybe dbfile is the best compromise between performance and stability
(maybe we should confirm this using Postage)
About the open issues I could accept an RC release with only JAMES-432
open.
Imho JAMES-302 could be closed as "won't fix" or moved to 2.4.
For JAMES-496 I would backport the change from trunk and I would remove
the whole handlerchain configuration from the default config.xml. I
would prefer to have an additional sample config.xml to show the chain
features or a documentation page but I would like to have a cleaner
config.xml with no reference to the handlerchain (that I would like to
change for 2.4 without having to worry about backward compatibility)
Stefano
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> +0 for cutting a beta2, had no time to evaluate my 3-day test run
> results yet and 1 or 2 runs are still to pending.
>
> I'd like to have us decide on the TEMPORARY DEFAULT configuration
> before having a RC.
> Because I suppose a fair amount of users are using the default config
> and it can be seen as a recommended way to run the server, it could be
> problematic to change it from a tested RC to release.
>
> Bernd
>
> On 6/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>> If you run
>>
>> svn log -r HEAD:409032
>>
>> you will see what has changed since we put out beta 1. I think that
>> we are
>> in good shape to put out beta 2. I don't know if anyone wants to call it
>> release candidate 1 or not.
>>
>> I'd like to post the next milestone before leaving for Europe on
>> Monday, so
>> this is a call for comments. Any more changes coming?
>>
>> --- Noel
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: 2.3 Beta 2 milestone?
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
+0 for cutting a beta2, had no time to evaluate my 3-day test run
results yet and 1 or 2 runs are still to pending.
I'd like to have us decide on the TEMPORARY DEFAULT configuration
before having a RC.
Because I suppose a fair amount of users are using the default config
and it can be seen as a recommended way to run the server, it could be
problematic to change it from a tested RC to release.
Bernd
On 6/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> If you run
>
> svn log -r HEAD:409032
>
> you will see what has changed since we put out beta 1. I think that we are
> in good shape to put out beta 2. I don't know if anyone wants to call it
> release candidate 1 or not.
>
> I'd like to post the next milestone before leaving for Europe on Monday, so
> this is a call for comments. Any more changes coming?
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: 2.3 Beta 2 milestone?
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> I'd like to post the next milestone before leaving for Europe on Monday,
so
> this is a call for comments. Any more changes coming?
The good news is that barring the discovery of new defects, there don't
appear to be any non-cosmetic/documentation issues standing in the way of a
v2.3 release in the not-too-distant future.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org