Moving forward with the future code base on the main/master branch is
fine with me.
Maintenance of Karaf 4 branches on 4.3.x, 4.4.x, 4.5.x, etc can
proceed into the future as required.
Cheers,
Jamie
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 5:22 AM Francois Papon
wrote:
>
> I think it's better to move forward on
I think it's better to move forward on a branch and wait to see if there
is feedback from users about a first RC before thinking on a new brand
name :)
regards,
François
On 07/02/2022 09:48, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
karaf-barrel ? ;)
On 07/02/2022 09:37, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Since
karaf-barrel ? ;)
On 07/02/2022 09:37, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Since it will act as a container/orchestrator we could play on the
"container" and use "karaf-crystal" or even "karaf-millesime" or something
in this spirit?
The overall point is to avoid to "simply" look like karaf 4+1 which is
Since it will act as a container/orchestrator we could play on the
"container" and use "karaf-crystal" or even "karaf-millesime" or something
in this spirit?
The overall point is to avoid to "simply" look like karaf 4+1 which is
limiting and karaf 4 will stay IMHO even wih karaf 5 (said this way
Hi,
If we want to dedicated repo (which I'm not against), we have to find a
name keeping the karaf branding.
That's why I wanted to keep the karaf repo.
What's about karaf-runtime repo ?
Regards
JB
On 07/02/2022 08:37, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi
think it makes sense to keep another
Hi
think it makes sense to keep another repo.
However it probably does not to have the version in it (when it will be v6
why would the repo be named v5 ;)).
Since it is a new project, wider than karaf4, I guess it should be renamed
(karaf-xxx) instead of merged to an unrelated project, no?
Yes the first plan is karaf-5.x branch on karaf repo (not a new repo).
I think it’s better in term of visibility and roadmap.
Regards
JB
> Le 7 févr. 2022 à 08:31, Grzegorz Grzybek a écrit :
>
> Hello
>
> Great to hear about Karaf5 progress. Do I understand correctly that you
> think
Hello
Great to hear about Karaf5 progress. Do I understand correctly that you
think about `K5` branch in apache/karaf repo? If there's no common history,
why simply not https://github.com/apache/karaf5 ?
regards
Grzegorz Grzybek
pon., 7 lut 2022 o 08:25 Francois Papon
napisał(a):
> Of course
Of course ;)
On 07/02/2022 08:22, JB Onofré wrote:
Let’s wait for others feedback on the mailing list.
Le 7 févr. 2022 à 08:08, Francois Papon a écrit :
I can manage the creation of the branch and move the code source.
regards,
François
On 07/02/2022 08:05, Francois Papon wrote:
+1, we
Let’s wait for others feedback on the mailing list.
> Le 7 févr. 2022 à 08:08, Francois Papon a
> écrit :
>
> I can manage the creation of the branch and move the code source.
>
> regards,
>
> François
>
>> On 07/02/2022 08:05, Francois Papon wrote:
>> +1, we can use a dedicated branch :)
I can manage the creation of the branch and move the code source.
regards,
François
On 07/02/2022 08:05, Francois Papon wrote:
+1, we can use a dedicated branch :)
regards,
Francois
On 07/02/2022 08:02, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote:
Hi,
It sounds good to me.
The K5 repo is currently on my
+1, we can use a dedicated branch :)
regards,
Francois
On 07/02/2022 08:02, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote:
Hi,
It sounds good to me.
The K5 repo is currently on my GitHub:
https://github.com/jbonofre/karaf5
I propose:
1. To keep main for karaf-4.4.x for now
2. Fix K4 like assembly on K5
Hi,
It sounds good to me.
The K5 repo is currently on my GitHub:
https://github.com/jbonofre/karaf5
I propose:
1. To keep main for karaf-4.4.x for now
2. Fix K4 like assembly on K5 (just have to push some new services)
3. Push Karaf 5 on K5 branch
4. Improve documentation on K5 branch to show
13 matches
Mail list logo
