jgoodyear wrote: > > 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. >> >
Thanks Jamie. By way of continuing the discussion, I'd like to ask that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-560 KARAF-560 be included in 2.3. If 2.2.1 is still collecting enhancements, I'd also ask that include KARAF-560 as well. ----- 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-tp2825055p2867917.html Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
