Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 17170 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2009 19:01:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Nov 2009 19:01:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 32573 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2009 19:01:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive@james.apache.org Received: (qmail 32545 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2009 19:01:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list mime4j-dev@james.apache.org Received: (qmail 32535 invoked by uid 99); 17 Nov 2009 19:01:28 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:01:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [92.42.190.144] (HELO ok2cons2.nine.ch) (92.42.190.144) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:01:26 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.108] (77-58-152-190.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.152.190]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ok2cons2.nine.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D9F44BA37B for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:01:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B02F2E9.8020205@apache.org> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:00:57 +0100 From: Oleg Kalnichevski User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org Subject: Re: Release 0.6.1? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > Mime4j development seems to progress very slow at the moment. To me it > does not look like that's going to change anytime soon. > > But since 0.6 we have fixed three important bugs in trunk (MIME4J-138, > 139 and 140). > > If 0.7 cannot be expected soon, should we cut a 0.6.1 instead? > > Markus And who would be willing to act as a release manager? Oleg