And another one (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-567)... Slowly I'm asking myself if we ever gone get out KARAF-2.2.1...
Kind regards, Andreas On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, > > just found another one, which is just annoying but could be fixed easily > i guess > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-566 > > regards, Achim > >> Mhm.. Since this thread is trailing off a little bit; just come back >> to the point: anyone any problem if I delay KARAF-482 and KARAF-504 to >> 3.x only? >> >> Kind regards, >> Andreas >> >> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x: >>> http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html >>> >>> He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that >>> might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into >>> being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it >>> to Karaf) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jamie >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 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 >>>>>>> >>>> > >
