Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which we could/should make available faster.
Kind regards, Andreas On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd > say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0. > > I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the > development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus. > If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this > survey project can be bumped up the priority list. > > I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release > already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to > be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on > trunk. > > As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm > liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line, > we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK > 1.6+, m3. > > Cheers, > Jamie > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hey guys, >> >> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504, >> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon >> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially >> compatible to m2? WDYT? >> >> Kind regards, >> Andreas >> >
