+1 to 2.1.x for the moment with the option that we setup hudson on (e.g.) 2.0.x the moment the next bugfix/improvement hits this branch.
kind regards, andreas On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
