I'm with Lukasz on that one; we should keep our releases as simple as possible, even if this means some more cherry-picking between the various branches. Independently, after getting some good portion of sleep and some more time to think about this issue I think we should walk down the same road as cellar: using 2.x for karaf 2.x support and 3.x for karaf 3 support (although this limits our version range according to semver.org). An option around this problem might be to add an additional version behind; e.g. starting with 2.0.0.0 and 3.0.0.0 for the first releases; or in other words KARAF.WC_MAJOR.WC_MINOR.WC_MICRO.
WDYT? Kind regards, Andreas On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org> wrote: > Once again I back with WebConsole topic. As we plan to support bot 2.x and > 3.x line. Current trunk (0.3.0-SNAPSHOT) of webconsole supports 2.x and I am > about to start 3.x branch to get karaf trunk also supported. The problem is > that we can not have the same version for both Karaf versions due changes in > package names and so on. So the WebConsole must have two different versions, > one for Karaf 2.x and second for 3.x. > > Another option is to make *core* of webconsole Karaf version agnostic, but > then we still have submodules which have to support different versions of > Karaf & OSGi runtime. Currently thing which breaks compability of 2.x vs 3.x > is JAAS stuff and move of some packages to jaas.boot. In my opinion it's > easier to manage release process with one version per branch, not like Aries > does - a version per module. > > On IRC we had few options, one was classifier, another was to start with 2.x > version for Karaf 2.x and 3.x for Karaf 3.x - just like we have with Cellar. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Lukasz
