+1 for the micro-branch for the camel-scala, and we can do the release it after major release of camel.
-- Willem Jiang Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat Web: http://www.fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) (English) http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese) Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Henryk Konsek wrote: > > There must be other project in the same unfortunate situation about Scala > > > > Anyone knows of other Maven based projects what they do? > > Camel is quite specific in this regards as it is not pure-Scala project. > > In my humble opinion the Camel way of handling Scala compatibility > issue is to fork only camel-scala module. This approach works like a > micro-branch. > > I would keep existing camel-scala module as a 2.9 branch, and created > forked camel-scala_2.10 module. By doing this, we will not force Scala > 2.9 users to change their dependencies. > > I also suggest to keep org.apache.camel.scala package name in both > modules. This will make easier for users to upgrade their routes to > the higher version of Scala. > > Any other ideas and approaches for the problem will be highly appreciated :) . > > -- > Henryk Konsek > http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com
