Hi Pontus,
OK, I will create the branch.
And, agree to do release. I just want to check if we have all the
resources needed (maybe asking a staging repo a OSS Sonatype).
Regards
JB
On 11/16/2015 11:25 AM, Pontus Ullgren wrote:
(Moving the discussion to camel-dev)
Yes I think we should
(Moving the discussion to camel-dev)
Yes I think we should start a 2.15.x branch.
Also now that we have moved camel-extra to github I think it is time to
start thinking about getting a releases out so that we can get in pace with
the camel versions.
While camel-extra is it's own project it helps
Hi,
Unfortuantly I've never done the release myself so I do not have
the continuity for how to do the release.
The latest releases has been handled by Christoph Emmersberger.
Related question why have we disabled the db4o component ?
Not that I have use for it myself at the moment.
But I'm not
OK so the new imported repo was trashed I guess due to some forced push.
I will make a new try to fix this later.
Could you please wait with pushing commits for the time beeing.
// Pontus
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 at 16:51 Pontus Ullgren wrote:
> Hello.
>
> The camel-extra repo
That sounds good so we don't loose anything. Can I additionally
suggest that the old repo get's closed/set readonly or something after
the move so we don't end up here again?
Keeping the mailinglist seems reasonable as extra will be very low
traffic - and then easier to notice when using same
Hi
Yeah sure I think re-creating the code on github with latest from
google code, and then add those PR's commits that are extra on github
today could be the way forward.
As we take the latest code from camel-extra then we are sure we have
all the bits that people are using today from the
Great,
I would be happy to do this new migration (already have the privileges
needed on the github organisation).
However I will wait an additional 72h just to see if there are any
objections :-)
// Pontus
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 at 09:40 Claus Ibsen wrote:
> Hi
>
> Yeah
Hello,
Any thoughts or comments on this ?
As I wrote above the two code bases has diverged but since the latest
official release has been made from the google code repo I think it would
be best to treat this as the official repository and recreate the gihub
repo with a new import to from google
Hi Krysztof,
camel-extras are not on github right. I've done some cleanups and upgrades.
Regards
JB
On 10/29/2015 08:15 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote:
Hi
Have you already performed the migration to Github? Have you done it alone? I
assume Infra doesn't support this process?
Regards
Hi JB
I have seen the discussion that Camel Extras is going to move to Github. I
thought it's done already. Have you already final descision about Camel Extras?
I have seen discussion on ComDev about moving to SF but the projects will be
not forced to move together to SF. As i have seen Camel
https://github.com/camel-extra/camel-extra
2015-10-31 14:01 GMT+01:00 Krzysztof Sobkowiak :
> Hi JB
>
> I have seen the discussion that Camel Extras is going to move to Github. I
> thought it's done already. Have you already final descision about Camel
> Extras? I
Yes, camel-extra copied to github quite some time ago. However after that
there was a period of uncertainty during which more commits and even
releases where made from the Google code repo up until the point where
google shutdown there service.
As time has gone by it seems that there is a risk
A short update.
Looked through the commits in the google code repo and github and as a
feared the two code bases has diverged with commits being done to both
places.
However I think I managed to juggle the commits for the master branch so
that the result is something that is acceptable. I have
Hi
Have you already performed the migration to Github? Have you done it alone? I
assume Infra doesn't support this process?
Regards
Krzysztof
On 17.09.2015 21:00, Pontus Ullgren wrote:
> I believe changing the package name would be a real problem for users of
> the library.
>
> Not sure why we
Hi Pontus,
I missed the mail you are referring to.
But after reading it, I agree. It should be ok, using the same (package)
name.
Best,
Christian
Am 17.09.2015 21:01 schrieb "Pontus Ullgren" :
> I believe changing the package name would be a real problem for users of
> the
I'm also not happy with the support/guidance from dev@community regarding
this topic and +1 to move to Github now. I'm not convinced from SF.
Before we are releasing our first release there, please check with the
Apache trademarks first, whether you can still use the name "Camel Extra"
or not.
Agree. From my point of view, if the Camel extras community feels
comfortable with Github, then go for it. It seems like the joint Apache
Extras effort has somewhat disintegrated anyway.
We did our part: having a discussion there and sharing our concerns at
dev@community. So I'm happy with how we
Hi Rob,
I think camel-extras belongs to the Apache Extras [1] umbrella...
That said, I'm not quite sure what's the point of grouping all "extras"
from all projects under a common ASF umbrella – I'm assuming it's for ASF
organisational reasons. It definitely doesn't serve a technical reason nor
While I personally think that is github is superior to what SF offers
(and that bitbucket is superior to github) for camel-extra I don't think
the choice of hosting company is that big a deal.
Camel-Extra currently uses
* Mailing list provided by nabble (http://camel-extra.1091541.n5.nabble.com/
19 matches
Mail list logo