dovecot - Oct 2008 - Dovecot 1.1.x or 1.2, which way to go for Kolab Server?

Hi Timo,
Hi *,

was written the other day we started to use Dovecot 1.2 for our Kolab
with Dovecot project, but it turned out that there are quite a bunch of
issues with 1.2 (which is ok, as it hasn't even been announced as beta
till now).

We have a customer who should get a first test installation of Kolab
with Dovecot in the first week of September and for that we need the
features mentioned in my other mails, especially the enhanced name
spaces for shared folders.  (%%h, listing of shared folders, an
checkpassword like backend for userdb).

So the big decision to make is:

- stay with 1.1.x and port the needed shared namespace stuff back from 1.2
or
- build on 1.2 and resolve all issues caused by it

Timo, do you have any opinion/advice on this?
How far from being production ready is 1.2 in your view?  
How hard would it be to get the shared folder/namespace stuff in 1.1.x?
(or for that matter: who much harder than to do it in 1.2?)

We are currently evaluating these questions, but I would highly
appreciate your comments on this. 

cheers
sascha
-- 
Sascha Wilde                                          OpenPGP key: 4BB86568
http://www.intevation.de/~wilde/                  http://www.intevation.de/
Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabr?ck; AG Osnabr?ck, HR B 18998
Gesch?ftsf?hrer:   Frank Koormann,  Bernhard Reiter,  Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20081007/fa59caad/attachment-0002.bin>

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 13:08 +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote:
> was written the other day we started to use Dovecot 1.2 for our Kolab
> with Dovecot project, but it turned out that there are quite a bunch of
> issues with 1.2 (which is ok, as it hasn't even been announced as beta
> till now).
I'd like to hear these issues, since I'm not aware of any v1.2-specific
bugs.
> How far from being production ready is 1.2 in your view?  
Depends on how fast people report bugs to me.. I've been using it for my
mails without problems for weeks. And about 3 other people also reported
in the last few days that they're running it for their small mail
servers.
> How hard would it be to get the shared folder/namespace stuff in 1.1.x?
> (or for that matter: who much harder than to do it in 1.2?)
It requires some mail-storage API changes. I'm not sure if those would
be easy to backport to v1.1.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20081007/c09b548e/attachment-0002.bin>

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:15:38 +0300 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 13:08 +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote:
> > was written the other day we started to use Dovecot 1.2 for our Kolab
> > with Dovecot project, but it turned out that there are quite a bunch
of
> > issues with 1.2 (which is ok, as it hasn't even been announced as
beta
> > till now).
> 
> I'd like to hear these issues, since I'm not aware of any
v1.2-specific
> bugs.
> 
> > How far from being production ready is 1.2 in your view?  
> 
> Depends on how fast people report bugs to me.. I've been using it for
my
> mails without problems for weeks. And about 3 other people also reported
> in the last few days that they're running it for their small mail
> servers.
Me too.


--Frank Elsner