On 11/24/13, Andreas Kasenides andreas@cymail.eu wrote:
On 23-11-2013 3:47, Noel Butler wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 10:14 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
- Thomas Leuxner tlx@leuxner.net:
- Ralf Hildebrandt Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de 2013.11.22 09:44:
Which patch?
http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2013-November/093654.html
Pigeonhole related patches.
Damn. Those are biting me as well :/
These would be found if Timo reverted back to issuing RC's before any official release, to iron out the niggly off-putting bugs, like most software does, or gets his devs and a community of official testers each with wildly different configurations and set ups, ASF have an excellent model that could be followed, bunch of devs and testers who each report on different distros and configs, why? because no single dev can imagine and test every possible configuration. it might just save dovecot's good name, I recall a lot of damage was done to that in the circles I'm in when 2.0 was released with patches nearly every few days and weeks, I know a few ISP's and businesses that went back to courier or Wu's because major bugs were getting in often, though it has been a lot better since 2.1 series, until this release that is :)
I second this and offer my services for two, three different system configs from Dovecot's plain old simple config with MAILDIR to slightly more complicated configurations with proxying/LDAP/dsync/mySQL etc based on virtualization with KVM.
I also propose that upon employing above strategy that Timo should come up with a release cycles (long term, short term) with announced targets. Patches should be released as patches strictly as needed, not releases, and should be announced on a low traffic list like he is already doing with releases. OR something along these lines.
careful, or the suckups will go you next :)
I know these are growing pains but essential. Email systems are CRITICAL for most of us.
dovecot is over 10 years, most softwares overcome these in the first couple of years
Andreas