Mike I agree with you besides one point. How do you tell people that this certain version of the SNAPSHOT is the desired version you are supposed to test with. So you are back at a "released" RC with all the extra efforts of the std. release process but also with the nice thing that Jamie is able to open another bottle of wine here ;-) So unless someone points out that we don't have the std. release cycle for a ReleaseCandidate with the 72hour vote to pass etc. I'm also -1 here
Regards, Achim Am 11.07.2011 18:01, schrieb mikevan: > +1 (non-binding on all of the items being discussed for a Karaf 3.0 release) > -1 for doing a RC release. None of my users will use that, and the time it > would take to do an RC is more than we need. My suggestion is that we > simply tag/branch a 3.0 release, test it, and then if folks need to make > fixes we apply them to the tag/branch the merging them into the trunk. > > > > Andreas Pieber wrote: >> @RC again; I'm definitely with Achim here (except that you really like >> to do the work Jamie :)) that we may ping the smx/geronimo communities >> to also provide snapshots of their products based on karaf_RC. that >> way the work will really pay off since we'll get tons of more user >> feedback (I assume) than simply do this for karaf alone (there are >> ways less projects depending on karaf directly I assume; comparing the >> download volume of SMX to karaf :)) >> >> Kind regards, >> Andreas >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> I think adding two more features to 3.0.0 then going for an RC makes >>> sense. >>> >>> As to an early RC that is not intended to be a 'true' release >>> candidate, I'm game to produce one if we think it'll help with >>> adoption/testing for the real 3.0.0. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jamie >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>>> Hi Christian, >>>> >>>> I'm agree with both of you :) >>>> >>>> We are going to release Karaf 3.0.0, not Karaf 2.3. It means that the >>>> end-users expect some new features in Karaf 3.0.0. >>>> >>>> I'm agree with Andreas to add two main enhancements/new features in >>>> Karaf 3.0.0. >>>> >>>> But, as you rightly said, we also need to focus on the code cleanup. >>>> >>>> I propose to choose two enhancements to be included in Karaf 3.0.0, and >>>> postpone the others to 3.1.0. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon 11/07/11 15:16 , Christian Schneider wrote:: >>>> >>>> Hi Andreas, >>>> >>>> I don´t think we need killer features to do a 3.0.0 as we can do feature >>>> enhancements in 3.1.0 without any problems. We should instead focus on >>>> refactorings that may break code and remove deprecated stuff. >>>> These should go into 3.0.0 as we should try to stay compatible in the >>>> minor releases that follow. >>>> >>>> In general I would like to get out 3.0.0 as soon as possible. This can >>>> only be done by postponing some feature to 3.1.0. I think this does not >>>> hurt much. We need time to create the more complicated features anyway >>>> and we can do the 3.1.0 release quite soon. >>>> >>>> So I think the question is: Will the features you named (profiles, Kar >>>> files, enterprise repository) break APIs? If yes they need to go into >>>> 3.0.0 or we at least need to change the APIs. If no then I see no need >>>> to halt the release as we can put them into 3.1.0. >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 11.07.2011 14:26, schrieb Andreas Pieber: >>>>> TBH I'm not too happy with the current roadmap. There are only >>>>> bug-fixes or minor enhancements which are also backported to 2.x; IMHO >>>>> we're missing at least 1-2 killer features making it worth for people >>>>> to upgrade to 3.x. We had various of those topics in the karaf >>>>> birthday (btw, when will be the next one? This was fun :)) discussion >>>>> and on our roadmap. By link: >>>>> >>>>> * >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KARAF/Apache+Karaf+First+Birthday+Meeting+%282011-06-16%29> >>>>> * https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KARAF/Roadmap> >>>>> >>>>> By name: >>>>> >>>>> * Clustering (ok, this is cellar and already possible on 2.x) >>>>> * Karaf profiles& Kar files (IMHO this is one of the most important >>>>> features for 3.x and not present in the issues by now; there had been >>>>> considerable work on this by David, but still, we're missing a >>>>> possibility to start e.g. CXF without modifying some files in etc) >>>>> * Karaf Enterprise Repository (No issue and no work on this by now) >>>>> * JDK 1.6 (done) >>>>> * Tooling& dependencies (here is still some work to do (and no issues) >>>>> * JAAS easy configuration (is it easier by now?) >>>>> * Improve Karaf development platform >>>>> * Web Console (I think this is not such a thing for 3.x; I'll provide >>>>> a prototype for this one with pax-wicket asap pax-wicket reaches 1.0 >>>>> (latest end auf August I hope) >>>>> * Karaf Cave OBR (OK, not relevant for 3.x; rather a new subproject) >>>>> >>>>> OK, with all of them named I think Karaf-3.0 should at least contain >>>>> two of the above mentioned features to be REALLY valuable for all >>>>> people. Considering the threads on related mailinglists (smx, cxf, >>>>> camel, ...) I think the following two should be definitely in 3.0 (at >>>>> least for 70% and usable): >>>>> >>>>> * Karaf profiles& Kar files >>>>> * Karaf Enterprise Repository >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Christian Schneider >>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de >>>> >>>> Open Source Architect >>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > ----- > Mike Van > -- > View this message in context: > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Towards-Karaf-3-0-0-tp3158763p3159611.html > Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- ----- Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead
