Hi Mike, > Just so that I understand what we're talking about, because I haven't seen > it articulated, is this the progression path being decided on? > 2.1.5 - Last maintenance release for the 2.1.x branch > 2.2.x - Still maintained (maintenance - bug fixes only) > 2.3.x - New features (development - new features allowed until release) > 3.0.0 - Next Major upgrade (development)
The 2.1.x branch will continue to receive patches as required, however once 2.3 and/or 3.0 branches are in release I would expect new 2.1.x patches to fade away. To my knowledge however we have not formally decided on a cut off point for branch support. The rest of the progression path appears to be about as I understand it to be at this time :) Cheers, Jamie On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:14 PM, mikevan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Johan Edstrom-2 wrote: >> >> +1 on dropping 1.5 >> >> >> On Apr 17, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Freeman Fang wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2011-4-16, at 上午6:50, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>> >>>> I kinda agree with David here. IIRC, we decided to go for a 3.0 >>>> mainly because of the switch to JDK 1.6. So we should release that >>>> asap and add more features when they are ready in the following 3.1 >>>> and 3.2 releases. I'm not really in favor of maintaining two >>>> development versions (2.3 and 3.0) at the same time. >>>> >>>> However, having a 3.0 will certainly break most of the existing >>>> downstream projects, as they certainly use a [2.2,3.0) range for >>>> imports, meaning they won't deploy on the new 3.0, so we definitely >>>> not to do that unless we need. So my position would be continue on >>>> 2.x and drop jdk 1.6 compatibility in 2.3. I think other projects >>>> have done that too and I haven't heard many complaints. >>> Yeah, agree with Guillaume here. >>> >>> Since Camel 2.7(but not 3.0) drop jdk1.5 support so I believe it's ok for >>> us to do same in karaf 2.3. >>> >>> Freeman >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 00:39, Jamie G. <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> It's a bit of a balancing act here deciding against a new 2.x branch >>>>> and a proper 3.0 release I agree. The general concern I think is >>>>> providing enough time for large number of major changes to appear in >>>>> version 3 trunk. Where major changes denote a large departure from how >>>>> Karaf 2.x works. By making a 2.3 branch we give some breathing space >>>>> for 3.0 development to continue. That being said if the community is >>>>> more in favor of pushing up the 3.0 date instead of a 2.3 branch then >>>>> that could work as well. >>>>> >>>>> Jamie >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:41 PM, David Jencks >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> I think an alternative would be to release 3.0.0 soon and put the new >>>>>> features on trunk. I've found that its much easier to create new >>>>>> branches than to maintain them. Could someone explain why a new >>>>>> branch is better than a soon 3.0.0 release? >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks >>>>>> david jencks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 15, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Jamie G. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There has been a number of discussions regarding trying out new >>>>>>> features on the 2.x branch while we are continuing to work towards a >>>>>>> 3.0.x release, as such I think it may be worth discussing if we'd >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> to create a Karaf 2.3 branch? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This branch would contain new features to the 2.x branch, and back >>>>>>> ported features from the 3.0 line. As this is a 2.x branch it would >>>>>>> continue to be JDK 1.5 & m2 compatible - we move to JKD 1.6 & m3 on >>>>>>> the Karaf 3.0 line. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At this point I would presume the logical branch cut line would be >>>>>>> starting from the 2.2.1 tag once available? The 2.2.x line would >>>>>>> continue on in support mode, with 2.3.x collecting new features. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Jamie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> Guillaume Nodet >>>> ------------------------ >>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >>>> ------------------------ >>>> Open Source SOA >>>> http://fusesource.com >>>> >>>> Connect at CamelOne May 24-26 >>>> The Open Source Integration Conference >>>> http://camelone.com/ >>> >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> Freeman Fang >>> >>> FuseSource >>> Email:[email protected] >>> Web: fusesource.com >>> Twitter: freemanfang >>> Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com >>> Connect at CamelOne May 24-26 >>> The Open Source Integration Conference >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > Personally, I'd like to see a release with the new and modified console > commands, as the developers on my team are ready to use them. The ones I > worked on will work with 2.x, as they were written to work with 1.5. > > Agree with Guillaume though, we shouldn't introduce JDK 1.6 until 3.0. 2.x > projects will likely want to make use of the 2.3 features, but requiring 1.6 > will break some of them. A project using 2.x will see using 2.3 as the > natural upgrade path, making 2.3 not backwards compatible is not intuitive. > > Just so that I understand what we're talking about, because I haven't seen > it articulated, is this the progression path being decided on? > 2.1.5 - Last maintenance release for the 2.1.x branch > 2.2.x - Still maintained (maintenance - bug fixes only) > 2.3.x - New features (development - new features allowed until release) > 3.0.0 - Next Major upgrade (development) > > ----- > Mike Van (aka karafman) > Karaf Team (Contributor) > -- > View this message in context: > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Create-Karaf-2-3-x-branch-tp2825055p2867577.html > Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
