DS 1.2:  AFAIK we've completely implemented the DS 1.2 spec.  I don't really 
understand the location binding and targeted PID bits.

Java 5: I'm certainly happy with not temporarily removing the java 5-isms, but 
I could still do it if anyone else asks.   I havent' done any basic 
housekeeping like removing the pre-java-5 concurrency compatibility code.  I 
have no strong feeling about releasing with or without this stuff.

thanks!
david jencks

On Oct 31, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Felix Meschberger wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Am 31.10.2012 um 19:54 schrieb David Jencks:
> 
>> I updated the changelog from the svn log.... hopefully I didn't miss 
>> anything.
> 
> Just updated the changelog from the JIRA release notes.
> 
> Another question crossing my mind: Since the current state passes the most 
> recent CT and checking the changes section in the 4.3 compendium spec I would 
> assume this version also implements Version 1.2 of the DS spec. Correct ?
> 
> The only thing not fully implemented for the most recent specs is support for 
> the most recent Configuration Admin features like relaxed location binding 
> and targetted PIDs. I can live with that.
> 
> Regards
> Felix
> 
>> 
>> waiting for advice on the other two questions....
>> 
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> 
>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 8:44 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> 
>>> At the moment the code uses some java 5.  How important is it that this 
>>> release not require java 5?  It would not be very difficult to remove the 
>>> java 5-isms and put them back after the release.
>>> 
>>> I've been marking defects as applying to and fixed in scr-1.8.0.  I guess 
>>> we should go back and change them to 1.6.2?
>>> 
>>> I have not been maintaining the changelog.... that will be a bit of work.
>>> 
>>> If I don't discover any giant problems before we get the above done I'm 
>>> fine with a release.
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> 
>>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 3:05 AM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I see the current trunk build passes our own as well as the OSGi CT tests 
>>>> and there are no open issues marked with 1.6.2.
>>>> 
>>>> Shall I go ahead and cut a release ?
>>>> 
>>>> This would IMHO also enable David to continue his refactorings.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> Felix
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to