Hi more a general point (might be discussed already with 'the component split'):
It's more about version numbers not the release process... I'm not sure if this ends up in a version clutter because it's not clear which version of (for example) ServiceMix works with which version of servicemix-shared. For example I would expect that servicemix-shared version 4 works with ServiceMix 4 and servicemix-shared version 3 works with ServiceMix 3. But here servicemix-shared version 4 works with SM3 and SM4. So if we release servicemix-common, servicemix-shared, components, features all in version 4 - could I use them all in SM3? ;-) I think the 'similar looking' version numbers are confusing... Just an idea: Why not release all "smaller" parts (servicemix-common, servicemix-shared, components, features) with different version numbers (Something like Ubuntu or http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/14/491) and only release the 'big assemblies' with major version numbers (ServiceMix 4, ServiceMix 3)? Sorry but this was the first thing that came into my mind... ;-) Kristian 2008/7/21 Freeman Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Guillaume, > > I'd like to release ServiceMix 3.2.2 once Camel 1.4 get released. > > Regards > Freeman > > > Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> I'd like to start releasing a few things, mainly: >> * Kernel 1.0.0 >> * Specs 1.0.1 >> * servicemix-common / servicemix-shared >> * start releasing some of the components (there are some of thoses >> that need a bit more work for OSGi, i'll keep the list posted) >> >> Camel 1.4 is nearly out, so we can also think about releasing >> ServiceMix 3.2.2 (finally). Any volunteer for this one or the above ? >> >> >> > > -- GASwerk - Geronimo Application Server Assemblies http://gaswerk.sourceforge.net
