Re: [Postfixadmin-devel] Do we need a 2.2.1 release?

[David G. <da...@co...>]

> Proposal:
> - new bugs have prio 5 by default, which is something like a "needs 
>   review" flag for me
> - major and critical bugs get a higher prio - 6, 7 or 8
> - blocker bugs get priority 9
> - not-so-important bugs get prio 4 or lower
> - prio 1 should be reserved for "do it on some rainy day" bugs ;-)
>   and maybe also for things we probably won't include, but that 
>   shouldn't be lost (like alternative vacation scripts)
> 
> Do you like this method? Or should we find another way?
 
 I don't mind this - but I'm not going to remember the above.

> While we are at it - should we force people to login before submitting 
> something to the tracker? Anonymous items are often problematic if we 
> need more information from the reporter...

Well, I'd rather keep bug reporting as easy as possible; and requiring
a sf login is one extra hurdle which might deter someone from
reporting it.

> I don't see a real problem with this - the forum also enforces login and 
> nobody complained about this yet ;-)
 
 Well, you can hardly complain if you can't post...


> > 'a' probably involves everything in trunk, except the merge of the
> > domain alias patch.
> 
> I would not exclude it - it's a feature that is requested quite often.

I think it should be slated for 2.3, and keep 2.2.1 as a maintenance
release were only bugs are fixed etc.

> However, we should think about adding an option to disable it via a 
> $CONF switch - and maybe it should be disabled by default in 2.2.*.
 
Yes.

> I have to admit that I didn't test domain aliases on a real server, but 
> at least the code in postfixadmin seems to work ;-)
 
 I've not tested it at all.

> collation specified in the MySQL dump. This means that the collation 
> 2.1 users have in their database depends on the local MySQL settings. 
> >From our point of view, we can just call it "random"...
> (also added this note to bug 1990191)
> 

I thought this might be the case.

> If you have some time, could you please update the changelog?
> If I get debian/changelog right, 2.2.0 was SVN r356. This means you'll 
> have to pick the most important changes since then:
>     svn log -r 356:379
 
 The changelog is only a normal text file... but yes I can/will.

> Please also add the SVN revision to CHANGELOG.txt in all (future) 
> releases and a $Id$ header (needs "svn propset svn:keywords 
> CHANGELOG.txt") so that we can always see when the changelog was last 
> updated.

OK
David.

-- 
David Goodwin 

[ david at codepoets dot co dot uk ]
[ http://www.codepoets.co.uk       ]