Hi. This looks like an excellent piece of software. I have shown it to a couple people who care about design sorts of things, and they were quite impressed.
I see the don't-use-the-cvs-version-unless-you-want-to-have-broken-email warning on the sourceforge page, and I am wondering how much you mean it. (:
I am willing to put up with some instability, but I want it to work most of the time. Should I stick with the official releases? I am familiar with cvs (and svn - glad to hear that you are converting over sometime soon) and comfortable working on code.
Do you have a suggestion?
Jon,
It's been my experience so far that the current cvs has changed so
much and fixed so many things compared to the latest stable, that you
should go with cvs. It has also been my experience that due to the
high level of activity on this project, any major problems with cvs
are usually looked at and fixed very quickly.
I've gone the route of cvs, and alerted my users that it's in
development. I have IMP set up so they can have a choice for now.
Regards, Stephen
On 17-Jan-06, at 8:27 PM, Jon Daley wrote:
Hi. This looks like an excellent piece of software. I have shown
it to a couple people who care about design sorts of things, and
they were quite impressed.I see the don't-use-the-cvs-version-unless-you-want-to-have-broken- email warning on the sourceforge page, and I am wondering how much
you mean it. (:I am willing to put up with some instability, but I want it to work
most of the time. Should I stick with the official releases? I am
familiar with cvs (and svn - glad to hear that you are converting
over sometime soon) and comfortable working on code.Do you have a suggestion?
--
Jon Daley
You are much better off with the CVS version than the current release.
The current relase is old, and not nearly as featureful. Also, I would
say the release has several far more significant bugs than the CVS.
I don't know of any situations of wiped out inboxes, or any disasters of that scale (although you never know), so it should be pretty safe to use. Basically, there might be occasional wierd behavior, but overall the CVS works well.
Rob
Jon Daley wrote:
Hi. This looks like an excellent piece of software. I have shown it to a couple people who care about design sorts of things, and they were quite impressed.
I see the don't-use-the-cvs-version-unless-you-want-to-have-broken-email warning on the sourceforge page, and I am wondering how much you mean it. (:
I am willing to put up with some instability, but I want it to work most of the time. Should I stick with the official releases? I am familiar with cvs (and svn - glad to hear that you are converting over sometime soon) and comfortable working on code.
Do you have a suggestion?
I'm looking the roadmap (http://www.roundcube.net/?p=roadmap).
For now, The RoundCube core functionalities are still in development of course but:
- Full support for PostgreSQL and others (using Pear::DB) Seems to be good but not sure. I don't use it.
- Redesign of the caching machanism OK, no ? (note the web site prints "machanism")
- Correct support for different charsets Made in the last CVS version
- Create contents.xml file to define skin contents No code for that at this time
- API for Plug-ins and extensions Need a complet re-design (particularly in the index.php file)
Maybe, it should be a good idea to plan a news release for roundcube.
Séb.
Le mer 18/01/2006 à 04:51, Stephen a écrit :
Jon, It's been my experience so far that the current cvs has changed so
much and fixed so many things compared to the latest stable, that you
should go with cvs. It has also been my experience that due to the
high level of activity on this project, any major problems with cvs
are usually looked at and fixed very quickly. I've gone the route of cvs, and alerted my users that it's in
development. I have IMP set up so they can have a choice for now.Regards, Stephen
On 17-Jan-06, at 8:27 PM, Jon Daley wrote:
Hi. This looks like an excellent piece of software. I have shown
it to a couple people who care about design sorts of things, and
they were quite impressed.I see the don't-use-the-cvs-version-unless-you-want-to-have-broken- email warning on the sourceforge page, and I am wondering how much
you mean it. (:I am willing to put up with some instability, but I want it to work
most of the time. Should I stick with the official releases? I am
familiar with cvs (and svn - glad to hear that you are converting
over sometime soon) and comfortable working on code.Do you have a suggestion?
--
Jon Daley
Debrard Sébastien wrote:
I'm looking the roadmap (http://www.roundcube.net/?p=roadmap).
For now, The RoundCube core functionalities are still in development of course but:
- Full support for PostgreSQL and others (using Pear::DB) Seems to be good but not sure. I don't use it.
- Redesign of the caching machanism OK, no ? (note the web site prints "machanism")
- Correct support for different charsets Made in the last CVS version
- Create contents.xml file to define skin contents No code for that at this time
- API for Plug-ins and extensions Need a complet re-design (particularly in the index.php file)
Maybe, it should be a good idea to plan a news release for roundcube.
A beta release is on the way. The PgSQL support has to be finally tested and the caching seems to be O.K. except the missing garbage collection routine. The API will not be included in that beta release and the contents.xml was just an idea but is not important.
In general, the CVS can contain some bugs while some development is not finished and that's why I added that disclaimer. Of course the CVS has many improvements and I also suggest to use the CVS version right now.
Regards, Thomas
Séb.
Le mer 18/01/2006 à 04:51, Stephen a écrit :
Jon, It's been my experience so far that the current cvs has changed so
much and fixed so many things compared to the latest stable, that you
should go with cvs. It has also been my experience that due to the
high level of activity on this project, any major problems with cvs
are usually looked at and fixed very quickly. I've gone the route of cvs, and alerted my users that it's in
development. I have IMP set up so they can have a choice for now.Regards, Stephen
On 17-Jan-06, at 8:27 PM, Jon Daley wrote:
Hi. This looks like an excellent piece of software. I have shown
it to a couple people who care about design sorts of things, and
they were quite impressed.I see the don't-use-the-cvs-version-unless-you-want-to-have-broken- email warning on the sourceforge page, and I am wondering how much
you mean it. (:I am willing to put up with some instability, but I want it to work
most of the time. Should I stick with the official releases? I am
familiar with cvs (and svn - glad to hear that you are converting
over sometime soon) and comfortable working on code.Do you have a suggestion?
--
Jon Daley
On 1/18/06, Jon Daley roundcube@jon.limedaley.com wrote:
I am willing to put up with some instability, but I want it to work most of
the time. Should I stick with the official releases? I am familiar with cvs (and svn - glad to hear that you are converting over sometime soon) and comfortable working on code.
Do you have a suggestion?
Well, there are alpha releases and beta releases (or milestones). With alpha releases use CVS, because alpha release are by definition are by definition unstable. Therefore the question is largely should you stick with the old unstable version or the new one. I recommend the new one, because ... well . the product is more complete (whatever that means). With beta I usually use milestone relases myself -- beta software is usually feature complete and milestones don't usually have huge showstoppers either.
tanel
--
Blog -- http://fm.ee/pronto/
-
Debrard Sébastien -
Jon Daley -
Rob Smith -
Stephen -
Tanel Raja -
Thomas Bruederli