Perhaps a 2.3.x line? Departing from JDK 1.5 support would represent enough of a change IMHO to require some sort of higher version number change. I'm not too much of a fan of having separate 2.2.x JDK 1.5+ and JDK 1.6+ kits... would just lead to confusion in deployment and debugging.
2011/1/4 Andreas Pieber <[email protected]>: > Actually I think we should name it karaf-2.x.x, but otherwise yes. At > least I would prefer this solution compared to a jdk6-branch since > 3.0.0 will allow us more freedom from a logical point of view (IMHO) > > kind regards, > andreas > > 2011/1/5 Jamie G. <[email protected]>: >> So just to be clear, you are proposing we branch our current mainline >> to 2.2.x and then have main become 3.0.x (which will JDK 1.6 going >> forward)? >> >> >> 2011/1/4 Andreas Pieber <[email protected]>: >>> The problem is that in industry still many ppl use jdk1.5. What I >>> would like is to branch off karaf-2.x.x and update karafs version to >>> 3.0.0 in trunk. I think the mainlines we'll be identical enough to >>> support both versions easily for at least another year or two (by >>> simply cherry-picking commits from trunk to 2.2.x) and simply do not >>> implement all features on both branches (e.g. KARAF-53 for 3.x.x >>> only). >>> >>> kind regards, >>> andreas >>> >>> 2011/1/4 Łukasz Dywicki <[email protected]>: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Some time ago I created issue KARAF-328 which is sticky card about JVM >>>> version policy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Now I am a bit confused because I would like get rid XML parsing from >>>> feature service and switch it to JAXB while working on KARAF-53. I know >>>> that >>>> build is made on JVM 1.5 and this change will broke capability with older >>>> virtual machines. I wouldn't force anyone to upgrade but moving to new JVM >>>> version can simplify our life a bit. :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Note that CXF, ActiveMQ and Camel works with Java 1.5. We have JRE 1.5 and >>>> JRE 1.6 profiles in jre.properties. From my point of view it is not a >>>> problem to stay with 1.5 but if it make sense to stay with version which is >>>> supported only if you pay Oracle for? As another note - JVM 1.5 was >>>> released >>>> in May 2004 and it is 6 year old. What do you think about that? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Lukasz >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
