Putting on my cheerfully optimistic release management hat. It will get there, it always does :)
Cheers, Jamie On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>> >> >> >
