[Mailman-Developers] 2.1 eta?

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "DN" == Dale Newfield <Dale@Newfield.org> writes:

    DN> Ahh.  I didn't realize the time-scale involved.

It may well be sooner, I'm just trying to be conservative.  Too many
factors outside my control!
    
    DN> I'm setting up a new machine to run a handful of domains, and
    DN> have been delaying the completion of various bits until MM2.1.
    DN> Clearly that's not a good idea.

    DN> MM won't be incredibly taxed by this installation--a handful
    DN> of small lists and one fairly large (<5000 subscribers)
    DN> announcement-only list.  How stupid do you think it would be
    DN> to use a3 on this site, and then upgrade as bits become
    DN> available?  How easy would it be to do that--is it possible to
    DN> simply check stuff directly out of the CVS tree, so that I'll
    DN> be able simply "cvs update" to merge in updates?  Would it be
    DN> a bad idea to merge in updates on a live installation?

One thing to watch out for is incompatible changes between alpha
releases.  I reserve the right not to worry about smooth upgrades
between alphas for things like .db file format changes, etc.  I don't
/forsee/ any such changes, but I don't want to commit to that until we
go to beta.  Once in beta, I will try quite hard to either remain file
format compatible, or provide and automatic upgrade path from one beta
to the next (and certainly from 2.0.6 -> 2.1).

If you're willing to assume that responsibility, you may not have such
a hard time.

-Barry