In fact i proposed two things :-) one to cut down the number of distributions into online and offline depending on the number of packages they contain and virtually any number of distributions based on features making them visible during the startup. The second one is to split the "non-core" parts out of karaf to keep a sleek karaf core.
It is neither exactly what Guillaume proposed, nor anybody else, but rather a mixture ;-) So I think this some up my ideas explained in more detail quite well. I am currently on my mobile phone. I can write this down in more detail once I am back to my PC if required. Kind regards Andreas On May 4, 2011 7:15 PM, "mikevan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andreas Pieber wrote: >> >> In fact I think we should take a look how far we really want to break >> down the various components. What really should be extracted. Although >> there are various possibilities to split Karaf I would roughly suggest >> something like: management, web, clustering, spring (to finally get >> the spring things out of the "real" core :)). Since there are 13 PMCs >> (if Jamie stays at releasing karaf-core there are still 12 remaining) >> I think it should be possible to find 4 PMCs willing to take over the >> release process for those components. I have no problem taking one >> myself (which means 3 remaining :))... >> >> Kind regards, >> Andreas >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> The website just requires committer status. >>> >>> According to this a PMC is 'preferred', as the PMCs are responsible >>> for their projects distribution directory at Apache. >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jamie >>> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM, mikevan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> jgoodyear wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As a reminder our release process is posted here: >>>>> http://karaf.apache.org/index/developers/release-guide.html >>>>> >>>>> To my knowledge those instructions should be sufficient to allow >>>>> anyone the ability to perform a Karaf release, the only caveat I >>>>> believe is that they have committer status as its required to perform >>>>> tags & uploads (not sure if PMC is required or not when it comes to >>>>> nexus). >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Jamie >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jamie G. >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Very true Mike. I've been picking up release duties as required. I >>>>>> have no claim at all to doing them other than if/when I'm actively >>>>>> assigned and working upon a particular release Jira task. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Jamie >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:04 PM, mikevan >>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christian Schneider wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think clustering is important enough to be part of the enterprise >>>>>>>> features. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 04.05.2011 14:01, schrieb Ioannis Canellos: >>>>>>>>> Guys, we are getting off topic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even though I like Guillaume's ideas about central repository etc, >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> still hypothetical since the mechanism is not implemented yet and >>>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> can't base our decisions on that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What we currently have is standard/enterprise features descriptor. >>>>>>>>> What I >>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>> saying is that clustering should be part of the enterprise features >>>>>>>>> descriptor *(and probably hosted as subproject)*. Once we implement >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> central repository mechanism we can move it there. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Guillaume >>>>>>>>> Nodet<[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subprojects sounds like a good idea on the face, but it really comes >>>>>>> down to >>>>>>> a management issue. Who is going to be responsible for each >>>>>>> sub-project? >>>>>>> Right now we have a few folks who are working on Karaf in addition to >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> open-source projects. IMHO, we should not have a sub-project unless >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> someone willing to be responsible for it. I also don't think Jamie >>>>>>> should >>>>>>> be that one person for all sub-projects. However, if we can get >>>>>>> folks >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> accept responsiblity for them, I think its a great idea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> Mike Van (aka karafman) >>>>>>> Karaf Team (Contributor) >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>>> http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Subprojects-was-VOTE-Add-Cellar-into-Karaf-trunk-tp2897884p2899307.html >>>>>>> Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hmm.. I thought PMC was required for a release, or is that just for the >>>> site? >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Mike Van (aka karafman) >>>> Karaf Team (Contributor) >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Subprojects-was-VOTE-Add-Cellar-into-Karaf-trunk-tp2897884p2899495.html >>>> Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>> >> > > Is this different than what Guillaume originally suggested? The original > suggestion seemed aimed more at creating customer distributions of Karaf, > and this seems like breaking up optional functionality into subprojects... > I'm a tad confused. > > ----- > Mike Van (aka karafman) > Karaf Team (Contributor) > -- > View this message in context: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Subprojects-was-VOTE-Add-Cellar-into-Karaf-trunk-tp2897884p2899744.html > Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
