Basically I've no problems with that; but I think we really should provide hudson builds (and automate deploys to apache-snapshot repos) for all supported branches, don't you think?
kind regards, andreas On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > It doesn't appear that we have a written policy for Karaf maintenance. > In general we reserve trunk for new development, and the patch > branches for bug fixes (and the rare improvement that does not break > backwards compatibility). > > Right now the current active support is on the 2.1.x branch and main > trunk. After the 2.2.0 release occurs then we will have the 2.1.x, > 2.2.x, and the new trunk as active lines. I do not believe we have a > planned discontinue of support for the earlier releases, if such was > to be considered I'm sure that we would have an open discussion and > vote on the matter. Personally, as long as bug fixes are being > submitted to past branches I'm more than happy to spin up a release > candidate for consideration & vote. > > If anyone else knows better on the subject please help clarify the matter :) > > Cheers, > Jamie > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hey, >> >> I've seen that there had been a commit to karaf-2.0.x branch; do we still >> support it? What is the maintenance "policy" for karaf? Which versions do we >> officially support? Only the latest stable release (e.g. 2.1.x for now)? >> Where do we "have" to back-port bug-fixes... E.g. if I find a problem in >> 2.1.2; >> do I have to also fix it in 2.0.x (if it exists there)? >> >> In addition to this question: IMHO we should also setup Hudson build targets >> for >> all "officially" supported versions to make bug-fixes easier and faster >> available via snapshots in the apache snapshot repository. >> >> Any ideas? Are there already guidelines documented anywhere? >> >> kind regards, >> andreas >> >> >
