Daan,
Good to hear from you! Hope all is well.
Yes, we should talk, but I'm afraid my schedule is such that I cannot put a
meeting on the calendar until the new year.
We have looked at the Java refactoring work. I seems most of that work was
a true refactoring in that it didn't change the interface used to
manipulate the systemvm's.
We could not find any posted changes to the systemvm's, unless we are
looking in the wrong place. ;-)
Because of the SP Java refactoring effort we have been concentrating on
changing the systemvm and building a system vm unit testing framework using
packer/virtualbox/vagrant and making changes to the scripts inside the
systemvm's without touching any of the Java code.
I would like to take a look at the changes to the systemvm, if any that
have been made by SP for the release (candidate?) you've referenced in your
email.
Regards,
Karl
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> H Karl, Did you have a look at the work going on @ Schuberg Philis
> yet? It seems to me there is double work going on that is not
> compatible to one another. our work is now at the branch
> feature/systemvm-persistent-config-3 ('-3' because of the painful
> rebase work we are having to do)
>
> As things are going now we are going to have conflicts in our work on
> merging! Maybe we should have a call about this someday soon.
>
> regards,
> --
> Daan
>
