I think it's better to move forward on a branch and wait to see if there
is feedback from users about a first RC before thinking on a new brand
name :)
regards,
François
On 07/02/2022 09:48, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
karaf-barrel ? ;)
On 07/02/2022 09:37, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Since it will act as a container/orchestrator we could play on the
"container" and use "karaf-crystal" or even "karaf-millesime" or
something
in this spirit?
The overall point is to avoid to "simply" look like karaf 4+1 which is
limiting and karaf 4 will stay IMHO even wih karaf 5 (said this way the
naming is obviously wrong :D).
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
<https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le lun. 7 févr. 2022 à 09:29, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> a
écrit :
Hi,
If we want to dedicated repo (which I'm not against), we have to find a
name keeping the karaf branding.
That's why I wanted to keep the karaf repo.
What's about karaf-runtime repo ?
Regards
JB
On 07/02/2022 08:37, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi
think it makes sense to keep another repo.
However it probably does not to have the version in it (when it
will be
v6
why would the repo be named v5 ;)).
Since it is a new project, wider than karaf4, I guess it should be
renamed
(karaf-xxx) instead of merged to an unrelated project, no?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
Le lun. 7 févr. 2022 à 08:31, Grzegorz Grzybek
<gr.grzy...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
Hello
Great to hear about Karaf5 progress. Do I understand correctly
that you
think about `K5` branch in apache/karaf repo? If there's no common
history,
why simply not https://github.com/apache/karaf5 ?
regards
Grzegorz Grzybek
pon., 7 lut 2022 o 08:25 Francois Papon
<francois.pa...@openobject.fr>
napisał(a):
Of course ;)
On 07/02/2022 08:22, JB Onofré wrote:
Let’s wait for others feedback on the mailing list.
Le 7 févr. 2022 à 08:08, Francois Papon <
francois.pa...@openobject.fr
a écrit :
I can manage the creation of the branch and move the code source.
regards,
François
On 07/02/2022 08:05, Francois Papon wrote:
+1, we can use a dedicated branch :)
regards,
Francois
On 07/02/2022 08:02, Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote:
Hi,
It sounds good to me.
The K5 repo is currently on my GitHub:
https://github.com/jbonofre/karaf5
I propose:
1. To keep main for karaf-4.4.x for now
2. Fix K4 like assembly on K5 (just have to push some new
services)
3. Push Karaf 5 on K5 branch
4. Improve documentation on K5 branch to show what’s a
service, and
so, allow anyone to contribute service/distribution
ETA: end of this week if no objection.
Regards
JB
Le 7 févr. 2022 à 07:56, Francois Papon <
francois.pa...@openobject.fr> a écrit :
Hi,
As we have some users that asking questions about Karaf 5
the next
Karaf generation, I think it would be nice to move the current
repo to
master.
It could be a good booster if we want to move forward on
this for
a
first RC.
Thoughts?
Regards,
François
