Cyrus IMAPd 2.3.4 Released

[Ken Murchison]

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 2.3.3.1 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.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
Carnegie Mellon University