Without feature change I would still prefer the shade/relocation + bom option instead of 2 branches (recall you didnt maintain your geronimo-config branches? ;))
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le sam. 25 sept. 2021 à 09:38, Thomas Andraschko < [email protected]> a écrit : > Mark, AFAICS you did it in a new main branch instead of master? > I would move master to 1.9.x branch and do 2.x in master > > Why isnt it in GitHub? > > Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 23. Sept. > 2021, 21:33: > > > +1 for making it master > > > > Mark Struberg <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 23. Sept. > 2021, > > 20:13: > > > >> hi! > >> > >> I've migrated a few things over to the jakarta namespace and started > >> dropping a few old features. > >> Right now it's just core which I got working, but will now also move > over > >> module by module. > >> > >> The draft can be viewed here: > >> https://github.com/struberg/deltaspike/tree/fb_ds20 < > >> https://github.com/struberg/deltaspike/tree/fb_ds20> > >> What branch name do we want to give it finally? Take the chance to > switch > >> to 'main' and somewhat later rename the master branch to mt_ds1.x? > >> > >> How did I proceed? > >> I did not yet delete anything. Pieces which I do not see as part of > >> DS-2.0 got moved to an 'obsolete' directory with the same structure. If > we > >> figure that we do still want to keep some of the features, then we can > >> simply move those files back without loosing any history. > >> > >> Happ to get feedback! > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> >
