Hi, I really liked the idea to have a "smaller" core, though I still think it's major change even if it is internal, so this should go to a 4.0. I hope we don't take another 3 years for the next major version, and I don't plan on supporting this. Still right now I don't see any value of opening another playground where we have still plenty to do with releasing a 2.3.x and 2.4.0 (where 2.3.x will hopefully be the last of that branch) and of course we need to harden the 3.0 branch first. >From what I can tell right now, regarding the 3.0 hardening it is mostly a one-man show of JB.
So please be patient to get this thing rolling. Everything to make this transition easier like decoupling the features, be my guest to add those :D regards, Achim 2014-02-03 Ioannis Canellos <[email protected]>: > As I mentioned earlier, I am not really interested in the release > version per se, but primary in the time to market and secondarily on > what it means in terms of maintenance. > > As in all things, the key is balance. > > Release often is guaranteed way of delivering value to users, > releasing too often may send out the wrong message (is it just me, or > people tend to become uneasy with very often major releases?). > > Also releasing very often means, that as a community we will be > supporting each major release for a small period of time, or we will > need to increase the number of major versions we support at any given > time. Do we have the luxury to do so? > > For example, let's assume that we go for a 4.x in say 3 months.... > It has proven a bit hard to maintain the long living 3.x branch along > with 2.x (module restructures made it not trivial to just cherry-pick > fixes from one branch to the other). If we add a third branch into the > mix, it will become even harder. > > So what are we supposed to do here? Push the release back 6 - 12 > months, or until we decide we no longer need to support 2.x? In that > case we could hold of creating a 4.x branch until we get near that > time (to avoid the maintenance overhead). We could use this time and > follow Dan's suggestion about letting other projects adopt the feature > changes. But still it does sound like a long time which is meant to > become even longer as "new features" will pile up for 4.x. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Ioannis Canellos > > Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com > Twitter: iocanel > -- 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/>
