Nô, i don't think we need it. On Monday, January 3, 2011, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: > We have a Hudson job for Karaf 2.1.x branch now: > https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/Karaf-2.1.x/ > > Do we need to make one for the 2.0.x branch as well? I don't think any > active development is happening on that branch right now. > > Cheers, > Jamie > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: >> We already have trunk on hudson: >> https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/Karaf/ >> >> Will have to see whom is familiar here with getting the branches added >> to Hudson as well. >> >> Cheers, >> Jamie >> >> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Good, this means according to [1] that some PMC has to setup the >>> hudson build (or give me the required permissions to do it myself :)). >>> >>> kind regards, >>> andreas >>> >>> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/general/Hudson >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> That sounds like a good idea for the snapshot builds :) >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
