I think we really should switch to jdk6 but I really do not like the idea
doing so during a minor release... :(
On Apr 9, 2011 6:50 PM, "Achim Nierbeck" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
> discussed
> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
> mailing-list
> for this :)
> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
> switch
> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
> momentum on this :)
>
> Regards, Achim
>
> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>> 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
>>>>
>
