Hi Mike,
I understand your remarks but I think it's more clear for the users to
have a Karaf 3.0.0.
More over for us, I don't wanna wait too long for Karaf 3.0.0 to be able
to control the scope.
Even now, we begin to see some broken points (features, build, etc) that
we need to fix and stabilize.
As I said in another thread, now the focus is on 2.1.5 and 2.2.1
release. Once done, I propose to focus on Karaf 3.0.0 tests, build, etc
to be able to cut off a release soon.
Regards
JB
On 04/26/2011 11:44 PM, mikevan 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.
