I assume you're talking about DS, right? I'll create a branch similar to what we did for config admin
Carsten Thomas Watson wrote > Changed subject to stop hijacking the discussion on releasing provisional > API from the org.osgi namespace. > > How do we come to an agreement on what branch to do OSGi R-next work in? I > would prefer to keep trunk in a releasable state based on the latest > published specification from OSGi. But we have more and more R7 work now > going on directly in trunk. Is it past the point of no return? > > Tom. > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> As of now, we don’t have an official branch policy. In fact we had a >> discussion before and we decided against such. >> >> So I would think that we should continue releasing from trunk and from >> trunk only. >> >> As such I like Tom’s proposal for a R-Next working branch. And since OSGi >> generally releases yearly with just consecutive spec version numbers we >> could just create a single branches/osgi-r-7 (or 8 or 9 or …) branch where >> we have branch copies of the specs we implement. >> >> This is orthogonal, though, to the question of whether we should be >> „releasing“ provisional API in the org.osgi namespace. >> >> Regards >> Felix >> >>> Am 04.01.2017 um 15:23 schrieb Thomas Watson <[email protected]>: >>> >>> My preference would be to do new osgi R-Next work in a dedicated feature >>> branch instead of directly in trunk. That way trunk remains releasable >> at >>> all times. But if we want to instead branch each project when its trunk >>> version becomes unreleasable then I guess that is fine, but it does seem >>> confusing. >>> >>> If that is what felix dev has agreed to then I do request a branch for >> scr >>> to release some fixes for the R6 scr implementation. I'm have a few >> fixes >>> that I need to get released very soon in order to allow the felix scr >>> implementation to be used as the DS implementation in Eclipse. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thomas Watson wrote >>>>> This has come to my attention because I am working on some fixes in the >>>> SCR >>>>> implementation. I noticed the latest SCR in trunk now depends on >>>>> org.apache.felix.configadmin 1.9.0-SNAPSHOT. And I think >>>>> org.apache.felix.configadmin 1.9.0 is being used to implement OSGi R7. >>>> So >>>>> now we have OSGi R7 API updates in trunk for existing OSGi packages. >> If >>>> I >>>>> understand correctly that means trunk is no longer in a state where we >>>> can >>>>> release SCR or configadmin out of. Instead we have to create a branch >> to >>>>> get new releases of these bundles until a time when OSGi R7 is >> finalized >>>>> and released. That seems like a bad state to be in. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We already have the branch for config admin and if we think that we need >>>> another R6 based release of SCR we can create the branch on demand like >>>> we did with config admin. >>>> I started with these two projects in a branch and at one point we have >>>> to merge the branch into trunk. I thought that now is the time as I >>>> didn't expect another release before R7 will be out. Might be wrong... >>>> In any case, creating that branch is easy. Just shout and it will be >> done. >>>> >>>> Carsten >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carsten Ziegeler >>>> Adobe Research Switzerland >>>> [email protected] >>>> >> >> > -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland [email protected]
