Also +1 since it will allow us, as preached all the time :-), to better separate features and improvement releases from bug fix releases!
Kind regards, Andreas On Apr 6, 2012 2:00 PM, "Achim Nierbeck" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm fine with a 2.3.0 branch also, > > this way we can upgrade this branch to pax-web 1.1.2 which already > contains lots of improvements. > > regards, Achim > > > > > Am 06.04.2012 10:18, schrieb Guillaume Nodet: > >> I do work on a daily basis on a private branch based on karaf 2.2.x, but >> it's a bit more than that, it contains a few things like osgi 4.3, >> integration with the new smx specs etc... I don't have any problem >> waiting >> more, but I'm felling that's a disservice to the community because I hold >> back things that some people actually need. >> I know the argument for rushing 3.0 out and focusing on it, but I don't >> have much time to do that myself and more importantly, that's not what I >> really need, so I don't think I can devote much time on it. >> >> Anyway, if people want me to delete that branch, I don't have any problem, >> but I don't really think this is the real problem. >> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:02, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >>> >>> I saw that Guillaume started to create the Karaf 2.3.x branch. >>> >>> I'm not against but AFAIR, we discussed to create Karaf 2.3.x branch only >>> once Karaf 3.0.0 is out. >>> Maybe I missed a discussion thread on the mailing list ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> -- >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> [email protected] >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > - Apache Karaf<http://karaf.apache.org/**> Committer& PMC > - OPS4J Pax > Web<http://wiki.ops4j.org/**display/paxweb/Pax+Web/<http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/>> > Committer& Project Lead > - Blog<http://notizblog.**nierbeck.de/ <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>> > >
