+1 from me.
I think that smaller steps make testing and troubleshooting less painful. Besides that, some features in current CVS HEAD like per-domain quotas are really nice :-)
Láďa-----Original Message----- From: dovecot-bounces@dovecot.org [mailto:dovecot-bounces@dovecot.org] On Behalf Of Bill Boebel Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 5:06 PM To: Dovecot Mailing List Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Login processes and a new performance/securitycompromise [was: Re: pre-1.0.rc27: Index and mbox fixes]
On Sat, March 17, 2007 10:51 pm, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi said:
Oh, and as for when the rewrite is in CVS, I'm not really sure. I'm still wondering if I should put it there soon and make the release after v1.0 be v2.0, or if I should first stabilize the current new CVS HEAD features (which shouldn't take too long), do a v1.2 release and only then put this code to CVS and make it v2.0..
I vote for first stabilizing the current new CVS HEAD, do a v1.1 release, and then put the ssl rewrite into CVS and plan to make that either v1.2 or v2.0. That way people will start banging on the new features in current CVS HEAD sooner.
Bill