Hi all,
a big +1 from me for a 2.3 Branch,
I can see the following additional improvements for the 2.3 branch while
waiting for 3.0 line :)
Upgrade to pax-web 1.1.x line since the 1.0.x line only does get attention
for critical bugfixes :)
Also add the web shell comands to the 2.3 line would be
I think it would make sense to create this branch and release it after 3.0
so that we can have a good overview of what we can backport into that
branch.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 00:34, Andreas Pieber anpie...@gmail.com wrote:
TBH I'm +/-0; It seams to me that we've discussed that topic already
Guillaume's approach sounds reasonable to me; making this clear should not
disturb development on master too much -- +1
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:11, Guillaume Nodet gno...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would make sense to create this branch and release it after 3.0
so that we can have a good
Hi all,
we started to perform a bunch of changes on the Karaf trunk (future
Karaf 3.0 branch): refactoring on the commands to introduce the
sub-shell, update to Pax Web 2.0 and Jetty 8, renaming on the commands,
new OSGi release, new Aries version, etc.
It means a huge change for the users.
I think as the number of compatibility breaking stuff grows in the 3.x
branch, the more welcomed a 2.3 release will be.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 14:54, Jean-Baptiste Onofré j...@nanthrax.net wrote:
Hi all,
we started to perform a bunch of changes on the Karaf trunk (future Karaf
3.0 branch):
Karaf 2.3.x could stop the JDK 1.5 compatibility.
Regards
JB
On 11/10/2011 12:16 AM, Jamie G. wrote:
The concept of a 2.3.x branch to bridge the differences between 2.2.x
and the to be 3.0.0 makes sense from the point of view of providing
our user base an easier transition. I would like to
Not sure if forcing 1.6 is really required. Does that bring any value ?
Another way is does that even change anything for us ?
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 15:16, Jamie G. jamie.goody...@gmail.com wrote:
The concept of a 2.3.x branch to bridge the differences between 2.2.x
and the to be 3.0.0 makes
It occurs more often that our desired dependencies require JDK 6.
We've taken great care on the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines to ensure JDK 5
compatibility, if we drop this requirement on 2.3.x branch then it
opens more opportunities to make things easier in transition to the
Karaf 3.0 (JDK 6 minimum)
Agree, I don't think it's required to maintain the JDK 1.5 on Karaf 2.3.x.
Regards
JB
On 11/10/2011 12:26 AM, Jamie G. wrote:
It occurs more often that our desired dependencies require JDK 6.
We've taken great care on the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines to ensure JDK 5
compatibility, if we drop this
Makes sense, let's drop jdk 5 then.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 15:26, Jamie G. jamie.goody...@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs more often that our desired dependencies require JDK 6.
We've taken great care on the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines to ensure JDK 5
compatibility, if we drop this requirement on 2.3.x
+1 for 2.3.x Karaf branch and drop jdk 1.5 support.
Freeman
On 2011-11-10, at 上午7:28, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Makes sense, let's drop jdk 5 then.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 15:26, Jamie G. jamie.goody...@gmail.com
wrote:
It occurs more often that our desired dependencies require JDK 6.
We've
IIRC during the summer we all agreed that 3.0 would be released for sure,
certainly, without doubt, by the end of the summer, and everyone would
enthusiastically help get it out. I don't think that really happened.
I'd prefer that more effort go into releasing 3.0 with a finite set of changes
12 matches
Mail list logo
