It sounds good, I will do that in Cellar if all agrees.
Regards
JB
On 08/17/2012 06:38 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote:
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
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
