I think the problem is not in the apache release process.
We would have been able to do a 3.0.0 release since some months now. I
think it was a mistake that we introduced a 2.3.x branch at all.
2.3.0 was not as stable as 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT when we released it.
If we had instead just released 3.0 as it was then we would be fine. By
now 3.0.x would be stable and people would already start the migrations.
So I think we should not do a 2.4.x branch and instead just push out
3.0.0 and work on making it as good as possible.
Christian
On 13.03.2013 01:52, Andrei Pozolotin wrote:
Daniel: thank you for your support :-) Andrei.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: release by subsystem
From: Daniel Kulp <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], Andrei Pozolotin <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 07:43:27 PM CDT
THAT all said, I would also like much more frequent releases. :-)
Dan
On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:42 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:36 PM, Andrei Pozolotin <[email protected]>
wrote:
Jamie:
:-)
how about automatic "YES" for RC release provided there is not a single
"NO" ?
As long as there are at least three YES votes to go along with the no NO votes.
:-)
Seriously, this falls into the lines of standard Apache release process
guidelines. Not something that is really changeable except under extreme
circumstances. (example would be shortening the 72 hour window for an
emergency security release)
Dan
Andrei
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: release by subsystem
From: Jamie G. <[email protected]>
To: Andrei Pozolotin <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 07:32:11 PM CDT
RC's are a tagged and signed entity that are released from Apache -
that requires a vote. The nightly snapshot builds are available for
integration purposes in the mean time.
Cheers,
Jamie
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Andrei Pozolotin
<[email protected]> wrote:
Jamie:
cant you make a case that RC is not really a release?
Andrei
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: release by subsystem
From: Jamie G. <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 07:24:53 PM CDT
Sorry for jumping in here,
Apache builds require approval before release:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
As to release schedule, that's purely at the discretion of the
community to my best understanding.
Cheers,
Jamie
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Andrei Pozolotin
<[email protected]> wrote:
Guillaume:
how about automatic, once a month, karaf RC-XXX release, w/o vote?
Andrei.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: release by subsystem
From: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 06:24:24 PM CDT
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Andrei Pozolotin <
[email protected]> wrote:
*Jean-Baptiste, Łukasz**
*
FYI:
1) I released a jenkins plugin which allows incremental cascaded
releases from any level of dependency tree:
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Maven+Cascade+Release+Plugin
Thx for the heads up.
2) I hope you can switch away from monolithic releases and release
karaf modules/subsystems on demand and often.
Releasing karaf is fairly easy, and we rarely are waiting for third party
dependencies.
When that happens, it's mostly because we have bugs waiting to be fixed.
3) IIRC, the first time "3.0.0.RC1 will come out in 2 weeks" was
promised on this mailing list about 2 years back :-)
And this has nothing to do with the release process. Technically speaking,
trunk or branches are mostly always in a releasable state.
Thank you,
Andrei
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: release by subsystem
From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu 07 Feb 2013 02:26:10 PM CST
Hi Andrei,
I understand your point.
Some parts are really tight together. However, that's the purpose of
the minimal distribution and framework:
- framework should provide the most minimal Karaf container (however,
it embeds Aries Blueprint for instance, as Karaf bundles use it)
- minimal is a very lightweight Karaf container, the purpose is to let
the user create a custom distribution on top of that.
I'm listening all proposals to improve these distributions !
Regards
JB
On 02/07/2013 05:30 PM, Andrei Pozolotin wrote:
*Jean-Baptiste*
I am curious if you envision to change karaf layout so release by
subsystem is possible.
For example, if I use minimal sub set of karaf, which does not need
Aries, why should I wait for it?
this is similar to how ops4j was partitioned way back, so there are
no monolithic Godzilla releases any more.
Thank you,
Andrei
--
Daniel Kulp
[email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
