Actually I think we should name it karaf-2.x.x, but otherwise yes. At least I would prefer this solution compared to a jdk6-branch since 3.0.0 will allow us more freedom from a logical point of view (IMHO)
kind regards, andreas 2011/1/5 Jamie G. <[email protected]>: > So just to be clear, you are proposing we branch our current mainline > to 2.2.x and then have main become 3.0.x (which will JDK 1.6 going > forward)? > > > 2011/1/4 Andreas Pieber <[email protected]>: >> The problem is that in industry still many ppl use jdk1.5. What I >> would like is to branch off karaf-2.x.x and update karafs version to >> 3.0.0 in trunk. I think the mainlines we'll be identical enough to >> support both versions easily for at least another year or two (by >> simply cherry-picking commits from trunk to 2.2.x) and simply do not >> implement all features on both branches (e.g. KARAF-53 for 3.x.x >> only). >> >> kind regards, >> andreas >> >> 2011/1/4 Łukasz Dywicki <[email protected]>: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Some time ago I created issue KARAF-328 which is sticky card about JVM >>> version policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now I am a bit confused because I would like get rid XML parsing from >>> feature service and switch it to JAXB while working on KARAF-53. I know that >>> build is made on JVM 1.5 and this change will broke capability with older >>> virtual machines. I wouldn't force anyone to upgrade but moving to new JVM >>> version can simplify our life a bit. :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> Note that CXF, ActiveMQ and Camel works with Java 1.5. We have JRE 1.5 and >>> JRE 1.6 profiles in jre.properties. From my point of view it is not a >>> problem to stay with 1.5 but if it make sense to stay with version which is >>> supported only if you pay Oracle for? As another note - JVM 1.5 was released >>> in May 2004 and it is 6 year old. What do you think about that? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Lukasz >>> >>> >> >
