What would people think of changing the groupId of the 0.3 maintenance branch to something like org.apache.aries.m03 so that we don't have any clash between the 0.3.1 release coming from that branch ?
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 20:30, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 18:33, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12 April 2012 17:10, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Fwiw, I have a local fork of the 0.3.x aries maintenance branch which we >> > could use as a basis for releasing our own version of the code if we >> need. >> > I think that would be beneficial for the Karaf 2.x branches where we >> could >> > get a bunch a bug fixes that we can't otherwise access. >> > >> > I know Geronimo has already released forked Aries code, (I suppose >> because >> > of the exact same issue) so I don't think that's a real problem: >> > >> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/ext/aries/blueprint/org.apache.aries.blueprint/ >> >> I'm not sure where the source for that is, since they don't have svn >> elements in their pom. I'd *much* prefer to release Aries from the >> Aries project. Creating forks in Karaf and Geronimo won't help keep >> the Aries community together. After all, where does a user go to >> discuss that Geronimo release of Aries? The Geronimo list or the Aries >> list. As a fork it splits the community. >> > > It does, and I don't think that's ideal. However I don't see how to do a > maintenance release of 0.3.x branch given some 0.3.1 bundles have already > been released from trunk. The only solution I have in mind is to rename the > groupId. If you have a better solution, I'd be happy to hear it. > > >> So I'm +1 for doing Aries maintenance releases, but -1 for doing them >> outside Aries. > > >> > >> > Thoughts ? >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 17:18, Holly Cummins < >> [email protected] >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Unless it's based on a branch from an older blueprint level, I'm fairly >> >> sure that releasing blueprint 0.4.1 isn't much less work than releasing >> >> 1.0.0. >> >> >> >> The reason is that the new blueprint code will only resolve against a >> new >> >> version of the util bundle. No existing bundles will resolve against >> the >> >> new util bundle, so any bundles with a util dependency will also need >> to be >> >> re-released. >> >> >> >> This is pretty wretched, but such issues should go away once we're >> using >> >> version numbers above 1. >> >> >> >> I'm going slightly slower with the 1.0.0 work than I could because I'm >> >> making sure that all the 1.0.0 bundles work together; at the moment I'm >> >> unpicking a problem with the application deployment tests and recent >> >> testsupport bundles, for example. This could be deferred until after >> the >> >> first 1.0.0 bundles roll off the assembly line, depending how urgently >> >> Karaf need a new release. I think it's neater to do things as I am, but >> >> pragmatism and neatness aren't always friends. >> >> >> >> In either case, a new release hasn't been forgotten, and I am working >> away >> >> at it. :) >> >> >> >> Holly >> >> >> >> >> >> On 11 Apr 2012, at 19:33, "Yonker, Jonathan" <[email protected] >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >>> >> >>> From reading through the mailing list, it appears that I'm not the >> only >> >>> one with this question, but I still have to ask. Is there currently >> any >> >>> timeline for the 0.4.1 release? It appears that all issues in JIRA >> were >> >>> resolved quite a while ago, so it appears that the only problem are >> the >> >>> release problems that I've been reading about on the mailing list. The >> >>> project that I'm working on runs on Karaf and we're eagerly awaiting >> some >> >>> of the bugfixes from the 0.4.x branch, but Karaf is waiting for 0.4.1 >> >>> before they upgrade from 0.3.1 ( https://issues.apache.org/** >> >>> jira/browse/KARAF-988 < >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-988>). >> >>> Does anyone have a good guess on the feasibility of releasing 0.4.1 >> rather >> >>> than just going right to 1.0? >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for any updates you can provide! >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Jon >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ------------------------ >> > Guillaume Nodet >> > ------------------------ >> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> > ------------------------ >> > FuseSource, Integration everywhere >> > http://fusesource.com >> > > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > FuseSource, Integration everywhere > http://fusesource.com > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ FuseSource, Integration everywhere http://fusesource.com
