On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Harald Wellmann < hwellmann...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> If this issue with Guava compatibility is a blocker for Karaf, I > wouldn't object to a 2.3.1 release of Pax Exam with just that fix. > > OTOH, 2.4.0.RC1 has a total of 9 bugfixes, see > http://team.ops4j.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10170&version=11182 > , > all of which should really go into a maintenance release, but I'm not > sure if it would be easy to cherry-pick them. > > Karaf is also the main reason why we haven't relased Pax Exam 2.4.0 > yet, due to the dependency on Pax URL 1.4.0.RC1 which was reported to > cause issues with Karaf Trunk, but there's been no further feedback so > far to decide whether this is a problem in Pax URL or a configuration > issue in Karaf. > > So rather than spending time on cherry-picking fixes for 2.3.1, I'd > prefer to go forward, build a 2.4.0.RC2 including the fix for the > Guava dependency. > > Pragmatically speaking, given that there's been no further feedback > from Karaf in the past two weeks, I'm not sure there will be any in > the next two weeks, so we might as well release Pax Exam 2.4.0 now > instead of a 2.4.0.RC2. > > If the Karaf issues turn out to require bugfixes on the Pax side, > these would then go into the next releases Pax URL 1.4.1 and Pax Exam > 2.4.1. > Exactly! Thats what i was saying with "going forward". +1 > > Cheers, > Harald > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > -- Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com>
_______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
