Re: [VOTE] next-major from trunk will be 3.0

[Søren Hilmer <sh...@widetrail.dk>]

+1
I really think this next-minor/next-major stuff has added confusion.

-- 
Søren Hilmer, M.Sc., M.Crypt.
wideTrail            Phone: +45 25481225
Pilevænget 41        Email: sh@widetrail.dk
DK-8961  Allingåbro  Web: www.widetrail.dk

On Tue, July 31, 2007 10:00, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> trunk has been dubbed 'next-major' for a long time now. a lot of extra
> function has been added to trunk and though a full release is
> definitely a long way in the future, the time seems right now to
> decide that a future release from this code stream will be designated
> 3.0.
>
> dubbing trunk 3.0 does imply that if the 2.x code base requires a new
> major release then this will take the 4.0 designation. i have no
> problem with that contingency.
>
> here's my +1
>
> i'll tally this vote no earlier than friday the 3rd of August 1200GMT
>
> - robert
>
> -- 8< ----------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 Dub trunk 'JAMES 3.0'
> [ ] +0 Sounds reasonable
> [ ] -0 Sounds unreasonable
> [ ] -1 Find another name
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] next-major from trunk will be 3.0

[Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini <vi...@praxis.it>]

+1

Vincenzo


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] next-major from trunk will be 3.0

[Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>]

Danny Angus ha scritto:
> On 8/3/07, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> 
>> I also agree that it added confusion: I had a clear view on what
>> next-minor and next-major was and at that time I thought it was clear to
>> everyone (I'm used to labels to identify software sprints). But the
>> facts proved my believing was wrong.
> 
> I think that was the problem, not that it was a bad idea, but that we
> didn't all have the same understanding. We use labels in this way at
> work too, to great effect, somehow it just didn't catch on here.

FWIW, even now that we have 3.0 instead of next-major, I don't have an
understanding of people preferences/ideas about the future of JAMES. Not
that my understanding is important now, but I hope someone will better
collect such moods/opinions.

It "seems" we now agree we need a 3.0M1, this would be already a great
step: I really hope to see a 3.0M1 out there, soon!

My opinion is unchanged since next-major: imho we can have a release
even tomorrow, maybe we should consider whether it is better to release
another version of the handlerapi (the current trunk) or it is better to
release 3.0M1 using the 2.3.1 handlerapi, or it is better to release one
of the experimental handlerapi.

I'm not a fan of the current handlerapi as I think it introduce
incompatibilities with the experimental 2.3.x support and it does not
provide a sufficient platform for the future (so I expect to see further
changes there sooner or later), but for the major goal of a release I'd
sacrifice almost anything, so I'm fine with any code will be there.

Stefano


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] next-major from trunk will be 3.0

[Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>]

On 8/3/07, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:

> I also agree that it added confusion: I had a clear view on what
> next-minor and next-major was and at that time I thought it was clear to
> everyone (I'm used to labels to identify software sprints). But the
> facts proved my believing was wrong.

I think that was the problem, not that it was a bad idea, but that we
didn't all have the same understanding. We use labels in this way at
work too, to great effect, somehow it just didn't catch on here.

d.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] next-major from trunk will be 3.0

[Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>]

Danny Angus ha scritto:
> On 8/1/07, Søren Hilmer <sh...@widetrail.dk> wrote:
>> I really think this next-minor/next-major stuff has added confusion.
> I agree with Soren.

I also agree that it added confusion: I had a clear view on what
next-minor and next-major was and at that time I thought it was clear to
everyone (I'm used to labels to identify software sprints). But the
facts proved my believing was wrong.

I still don't know what could have been a better approach to the missing
agreement on the numbers.

Btw this vote by Robert could have been started by anyone, any day in
the past: we can't tell if the result of the vote 8 months ago could
have been the same, but I hope everyone learned a lesson from this.

Stefano


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] next-major from trunk will be 3.0

[Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>]

Phew two hours to go! :)

+1 Dub trunk 'JAMES 3.0'

On 8/1/07, Søren Hilmer <sh...@widetrail.dk> wrote:
> I really think this next-minor/next-major stuff has added confusion.
I agree with Soren.

d.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org