+1. Though 2.3.0 could be released any time now. I don't have had issues with M1.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]>wrote: > +1 from me, sounds like a good idea. > > Regards, Achim > > > 2011/12/16 Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> > >> not from my side... feel free to go ahead. >> >> Kind regards, >> Andreas >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 18:20, Harald Wellmann < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> As I've started working on a couple of things which should _not_ go into >>> the forthcoming Pax Exam 2.3.0 release, I propose creating a pax-exam-2.3.x >>> branch in the Github repo. >>> >>> The idea is that the 2.3.0 release and any subsequent 2.3.x releases >>> will be taken from this branch, whereas all new stuff for 2.4+ will go to >>> master. >>> >>> I.e. anybody reviewing or making changes for 2.3.0 would have to use the >>> pax-exam-2.3.x branch. >>> >>> Any objections? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Harald >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> general mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ops4j.org/**mailman/listinfo/general<http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> general mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >> >> > > > -- > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & > Project Lead > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > -- Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com>
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
