Please keep in mind that Cellar is more specific to Karaf than Web Console is.
People can run Web Console on single node, for development purposes and so on.
I won't say that Cellar is only for Karaf, but it's mostly used with Karaf.
Going further Karaf can be one from platforms supported by Web Console. Maybe
we can do something tricky and separately release core of Web Console and have
branding/platform support for Karaf 2.x and 3.x? Things like OSGi management do
not depend of Karaf and we should not have two different versions of same code,
don't you think?
For now we have
webconsole
- core
- osgi
- core
- config
- karaf
- features
- admin
- admin
- web
We could do:
webconsole
- core
- osgi
- core
- config
- admin
- platform
- web
- karaf-2.x
- features
- admin
- karaf-3.x
- features
- admin
Thanks to that we'll keep same version of common artifacts and have support for
Karaf 2.x and 3.x. We can also have a separate branches of platforms.
That makes versioning a bit more complicated, but I think it fits development
better and it's still simple for user.
Best regards,
Lukasz
Wiadomość napisana przez Achim Nierbeck w dniu 18 sie 2012, o godz. 19:06:
> +1, for keeping the same versioning as in Cellar
>
> 2012/8/17 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>:
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
> OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/>
> Committer & Project Lead
> OPS4J Pax for Vaadin
> <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project
> Lead
> blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
