I've already repeated my position up to be annoying :-) but I repeat that for me either solutions are ok Maybe a quick vote could be the fastest and more democratic way to take a decision ? Could someone please summarize the available options?
Regards, Cristiano 2014-02-17 16:53 GMT+01:00 Gert Vanthienen <[email protected]>: > Hi Raul, > > > Yeah, I think 4.9.0 is a bit of a strange version number as well. But > you're also right that some users will take a bit longer to move over > to Karaf 3. What's more: the version may not even be as temporary > for us as we would hope, perhaps we end up doing another release in > that series if people in the community are asking about another Karaf > 2.x based release after this one. > > We do want that to be based on the current ServiceMix 5 codebase > (without JBI/NMR) and not on the current ServiceMix 4.x codebase? > Because the latter was the original plan and we failed to get any > contributors to help out with that effort. > > I do wonder if we won't end up confusing people as well, when > ServiceMix 4.6.0 suddenly no longer has any JBI/NMR support in there. > We can probably communicate that though, so it might not be that big a > problem, but we might also want to reconsider Krzysztof's proposal to > go with 5.x for the Karaf 2.x-based assemblies without JBI/NMR (and we > can have a few of those, using Karaf 2.3.x and 2.4.x) and use 6.x for > the Karaf 3-based assemblies. > > > Wdyt? > > Gert Vanthienen > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Raul Kripalani <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> As a version 5 suggests a big major change I'd go for karaf 3 also. > > > > > > +1. This was my reasoning too. > > > > And use the current base for a 4.9 as already suggested. > > > > > > What I'm not 100% confident is about the version gap by jumping from > 4.5.3 > > straight to 4.9.0. This might confuse users as they'll expect to find an > > ordered sequence of versions in Maven Central which will not exist. > > > > What's wrong with releasing a SMX based on Karaf 2.3.3 under version > 4.6.0? > > > > To be honest, we - SMX developers - may think of 4.9.0 as a transitional > > version because we're quite comfortable with upgrading to Karaf 3.0.x > when > > the time comes. We would hence happily adopt SMIX 5 when released. > > > > However, switching to SMIX5 with Karaf 3.0.x + associated OSGi + > Blueprint > > + Spring upgrades won't be feasible for everybody, as enterprise folks > may > > have custom code to migrate first. > > > > Therefore, version 4.9.0 may end up NOT being temporary for them. They > may > > be stuck on 4.9.0 forever, "stigmatized" with the label "transitional", > if > > they don't get the support or funding to migrate. > > > > At this point, I prefer to be predictable and kind to all users, and go > for: > > > > * SMX based on Karaf 2.3.x => version 4.6.0. > > * SMX based on Karaf 3.0.x => version 5.0.0. > > > > Regards, > > > > *Raúl Kripalani* > > Enterprise Architect, Open Source Integration specialist > > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> As a version 5 suggests a big major change I'd go for karaf 3 also. And > use > >> the current base for a 4.9 as already suggested. > >> > >> Regards, Achim > >> > >> sent from mobile device > >> Am 16.02.2014 08:03 schrieb "Filippo Balicchia" <[email protected]>: > >> > >> > For Serviecemix 5 a prefer to use karaf 3.0.* too. > >> > For me is +1 > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > > >> > --Filippo > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-02-15 23:17 GMT+01:00 Gert Vanthienen <[email protected] > >: > >> > > >> > > L.S., > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > In the "Plan for ServiceMix 5" thread, we've seen a few proposals on > >> > > how to deal with the upgrade to Karaf 3. I think this discussion > >> > > definitely merits a thread of its own. > >> > > > >> > > Personally, I would prefer to do a ServiceMix 5 release with Karaf 3 > >> > > if possible, but I'm not sure how stable/unstable this actually is > at > >> > > the moment. The 3.0.0 release definitely had a few issues, but a > lot > >> > > of them have already been addressed and I think I even saw a 3.0.1 > on > >> > > the roadmap for the next few weeks. > >> > > > >> > > If this delay is all it takes to get that upgrade in ServiceMix 5, I > >> > > think we should do that. However, we do not really know big the > >> > > problem is. Perhaps someone could give it a go and try to figure > out > >> > > how big of an issue this upgrade is? The effort should definitely > not > >> > > be in vain, we can always commit it to another branch and start > >> > > working on a later release there if necessary. Any volunteers? > >> > > > >> > > If we see it will just take a few more weeks to get everything in > >> > > order for a Karaf 3-based release, we can always do a release > >> > > candidate or two to show the world we're actually moving again and > to > >> > > get some feedback from the community on where we're headed - that > time > >> > > can actually come in quite handy to work on docs, for example. > >> > > However, if the research shows that things will take too long, we > >> > > probably have to come up with a 2.3.x-based release first anyway. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Wdyt? > >> > > > >> > > Gert Vanthienen > >> > > > >> > > >> >
