We have a few iTest failures we need to resolve, then we should have a
clean build of trunk (running all tests).

Once we have a clean building trunk its time to branch - we still need
to polish 3.0.x a bit before we do a Release Candidate.

Cheers,
Jamie

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just to revitalize this discussion a little bit: How far are we? What is
> still missing before we can start the stabilization branch? Maybe we can
> finally provide a checklist of must-be-included :-)
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 09:23, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Guillaume,
>>
>> For the spec, I think that we have to release a new version of the bundles
>> in any case.
>>
>> I can take it.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 01/17/2012 09:04 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>>> The changes I've made so far are in a github branch, I can at least
>>> backport the inclusion of the activator and custom specs (jaxp, stax,
>>> jaxb, jaxws) to trunk.  For the versions of the exported package, I'm
>>> still not sure what's the best way, we can either export versions on
>>> the packages or release new versions of the bundles (we'll need a
>>> release of the specs anyway).
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 07:59, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[email protected]>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>
>>>> Guillaume made a first change on trunk around that.
>>>>
>>>> So it will includes in the branch.
>>>>
>>>> I plan to include sub-shell and profiles too on this branch.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/16/2012 04:31 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:19:53 AM David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've been feature complete since last august, except everyone keeps
>>>>>> deciding we need more features.  I think Andreas's point is that unless
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> decide that we're going to do a release we'll never run out of
>>>>>> essential
>>>>>> features that absolutely need to be in 3.0 before we can release it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What specific features do you need in 3.0 that aren't there right now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Guillaume's activator stuff ready/in there?   That would be the main
>>>>> thing
>>>>> I'd like to see included at this point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> anyway +1 from me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 14, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically this is a good idea. I am just unsure if we are already at
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> point where we should do the branch. Do we have all features necessary
>>>>>>> for 3.0 finished? I think we should do the branch as soon as we are
>>>>>>> feature complete. So the branch really can focus on stabilizing
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 14.01.2012 16:40, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As all of you know we really want to get Karaf 3.0 out now for some
>>>>>>>> time. But as long we add new "groundbreaking" features to the master
>>>>>>>> we'll always destabilize it at some point. To give us a chance to
>>>>>>>> finally stabilize the entire thing and getting out a 3.0 release I
>>>>>>>> would like to propose a feature freeze for 3.0 starting (for example)
>>>>>>>> today in a week. Pack everything into trunk you already have and
>>>>>>>> really want to be part of Karaf 3. Then we'll cut off a new branch
>>>>>>>> (karaf-3.0.x) where we do not allow any new features. The version on
>>>>>>>> the master/trunk will be increased to 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT. This should be
>>>>>>>> the place then for all new features. This step should free us from
>>>>>>>> new regressions and give us the time to finalize 3.0.0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> [email protected]
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>

Reply via email to