L.S.,
That could be another option - when we talked about doing two more releases until the end of the year, I assumed minor releases because we would 'automatically' get the JBI components releases that we need when we do our ServiceMix 4.5.0/4.6.0 releases. If we decide to do micro/fix release on 3.4.0 instead, we just have to set up a new maintenance branch on the JBI components (version 2011.02) and do separate releases of those components and the 3.4.x container. The drawback of the latter approach is that it's a bit more work to set up the branches, backport a few bug fixes made on trunk and afterwards maintain the branch for a few more months and to cut the extra JBI components releases for every micro version of 3.4.x. The benefit would obviously be that it's more clear as an EOL strategy and that we might have less work updating the examples in the ServiceMix 3 build to work with newer version of Camel and CXF. Both approaches are viable solutions in my mind - any thoughts? Regards, Gert Vanthienen ------------------------ FuseSource Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/ On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Claus Ibsen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Gert Vanthienen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Diwakar, >> >> >> We're hoping to prepare both a 4.5.0 and 3.5.0 (which go together >> because they share the same JBI components release) in the next few >> weeks - the best way to ensure things are moving along as quickly as >> possible, would be to help out testing the current code in trunk for >> ServiceMix 3. Most of us are not that actively working on the older >> stuff any more, so any help we can get testing/building/fixing those >> versions would be more than welcome! >> > > Why release a new 3.5 release, why not a 3.4.1, eg a patch release? > http://servicemix.apache.org/downloads/servicemix-3.4.0.html > > And the 3.4.1 has the latest 2.8.x and 2.4.x versions of Camel and CXF. > > The old 3.x is EOL and IMHO we should not do a new minor release, and > then EOL it right away. > The 3.4.x is patch releases and we should support what people run in > product currently for the EOL period. > > > >> For the changes on the website - they're still on my TODO list but I >> haven't gotten around to them yet. How about I send an update to the >> dev@ list when it's done and sync'ed over? >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Gert Vanthienen >> ------------------------ >> FuseSource >> Web: http://fusesource.com >> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:22 AM, diwakar <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the reply. >>> >> we most likely will have two more versions of this >>> This is good. Hope it will be delivered on time (unlike 3.4 >>> which took a long time after 3.3.2 release) >>> >> we should have been communicating this to our user base ... I >>> can start updating the website on Monday, >>> I checked >>> http://servicemix.apache.org/downloads/servicemix-3.4.0 and >>> http://servicemix.apache.org/download.html. >>> I still cant find information related to the deprecation of >>> Servicemix 3.x version. Is it updated somewhere else. Please let me know >>> your comment. >>> >>> With Best Regards, >>> Diwakar >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://servicemix.396122.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-ServiceMix-3-x-EOL-tp5713318p5713424.html >>> Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > -- > Claus Ibsen > ----------------- > FuseSource > Email: [email protected] > Web: http://fusesource.com > Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews > Blog: http://davsclaus.com > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
