Cyrus IMAPd 2.3.4 Released
murch at andrew.cmu.edu
Thu May 25 08:43:46 EDT 2006
Robert Mueller wrote:
>>> Is this a good spot to suggest branching from the last stable release
>>> (2.3.3 in this case) and just applying the bugfixes if HEAD is only
>>> half finished?
>> 2.3 is beta branch. You want stable you go for 2.2.
> Beta is may be, but still....
> 1. There's no regression testing with cyrus at all. I did try and start
> a cyrus regression test a while back (just a perl script to test basic
> IMAP functionality) but there wasn't really interest in taking it up. I
> still strongly believe that some form of basic regression test that is
> built up more and more over time is is important.
> 2. This bug is something that would have turned up with 5 minutes of
> basic functionality testing (copying a message from one folder to
> another is broken)
> 3. 2.3.3 was working really well, and has been working well for months.
> A serious security issue was found so 2.3.4 was released. 2.3.4 was
> totally broken.
> 4. The reason 2.3.4 was totally brokwn was because significant
> functionality was added from 2.3.3 -> 2.3.4 (CONDSTORE stuff). It's a
> hard compromise between releasing new features regularly and keeping a
> stable branch. Maybe we need a 2.3.x-rc1 type scheme before an official
> release so that the obvious things get caught before an actual point
> release? Or maybe a 220.127.116.11 release for urgent security/minor bug fixes?
> Just throwing things in the wind, seeing if anything sticks. Maybe this
> is just a more "one off" type situation, and a rethinking of release
> strategy is not needed.
This hole mess is a result of me having my head up my ass. I usually do
pretty thorough testing of any code that I touch, and I *thought* that I
had done that with the CONDSTORE stuff. Its now obvious that I didn't
do enough testing of the non-CONDSTORE case.
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
Carnegie Mellon University
More information about the Cyrus-devel