You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@karaf.apache.org by Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> on 2011/04/09 12:02:01 UTC
delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Hey guys,
We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
(1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
compatible to m2? WDYT?
Kind regards,
Andreas
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>.
Me neither :)
> I think we really should switch to jdk6 but I really do not like the idea
> doing so during a minor release... :(
> On Apr 9, 2011 6:50 PM, "Achim Nierbeck" <bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
>> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
>> discussed
>> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
>> mailing-list
>> for this :)
>> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
>> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
>> switch
>> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
>> momentum on this :)
>>
>> Regards, Achim
>>
>> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
>>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
>>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
>>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
>>> we could/should make available faster.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
>>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
>>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
>>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
>>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
>>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
>>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
>>>> trunk.
>>>>
>>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
>>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
>>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
>>>> 1.6+, m3.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jamie
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>.
I think we really should switch to jdk6 but I really do not like the idea
doing so during a minor release... :(
On Apr 9, 2011 6:50 PM, "Achim Nierbeck" <bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
> discussed
> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
> mailing-list
> for this :)
> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
> switch
> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
> momentum on this :)
>
> Regards, Achim
>
> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
>> we could/should make available faster.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>>>
>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>>>
>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
>>> trunk.
>>>
>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
>>> 1.6+, m3.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>
>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Ioannis Canellos <io...@gmail.com>.
I would love to donate my work on Cellar to Karaf.
Now regarding the differences with Apache ACE, they are tottally different.
ACE is about provisioning, while Cellar is about keeping multiple Karaf
nodes in sync (in terms of configuration, features etc).
I like Andreas idea about a wiki page. So I think I will add more
information there.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is something which could be interesting for a 2.3
> release; still I think we have enough "minor" features available which
> may be interesting to be backported to a 2.3 release without
> introducing something "bigger". BTW, if Ioannis would like to donate
> his work we really should start a wiki page (maybe still in the 3.x
> roadmap) discussing where and how we want to include it. Maybe we
> should also have to state the differences to Apache ACE?
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x:
> >
> http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html
> >
> > He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that
> > might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into
> > being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it
> > to Karaf)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jamie
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
> >> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
> >> discussed
> >> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
> >> mailing-list
> >> for this :)
> >> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
> >> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
> >> switch
> >> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
> >> momentum on this :)
> >>
> >> Regards, Achim
> >>
> >> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
> >>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
> >>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
> >>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
> >>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
> >>> we could/should make available faster.
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>> Andreas
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
> >>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
> >>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
> >>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
> >>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
> >>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
> >>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
> >>>> trunk.
> >>>>
> >>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
> >>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
> >>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
> >>>> 1.6+, m3.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Jamie
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> Hey guys,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
> >>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
> >>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
> >>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>> Andreas
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
--
*Ioannis Canellos*
*
http://iocanel.blogspot.com
Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer
*
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>.
I think this is something which could be interesting for a 2.3
release; still I think we have enough "minor" features available which
may be interesting to be backported to a 2.3 release without
introducing something "bigger". BTW, if Ioannis would like to donate
his work we really should start a wiki page (maybe still in the 3.x
roadmap) discussing where and how we want to include it. Maybe we
should also have to state the differences to Apache ACE?
Kind regards,
Andreas
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x:
> http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html
>
> He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that
> might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into
> being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it
> to Karaf)
>
> Cheers,
> Jamie
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
>> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
>> discussed
>> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
>> mailing-list
>> for this :)
>> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
>> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
>> switch
>> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
>> momentum on this :)
>>
>> Regards, Achim
>>
>> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
>>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
>>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
>>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
>>> we could/should make available faster.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
>>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
>>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
>>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
>>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
>>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
>>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
>>>> trunk.
>>>>
>>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
>>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
>>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
>>>> 1.6+, m3.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jamie
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Andreas,
that's fine with me.
regards, Achim
> Mhm.. Since this thread is trailing off a little bit; just come back
> to the point: anyone any problem if I delay KARAF-482 and KARAF-504 to
> 3.x only?
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x:
>> http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html
>>
>> He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that
>> might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into
>> being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it
>> to Karaf)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jamie
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
>>> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
>>> discussed
>>> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
>>> mailing-list
>>> for this :)
>>> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
>>> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
>>> switch
>>> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
>>> momentum on this :)
>>>
>>> Regards, Achim
>>>
>>> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>>>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
>>>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
>>>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
>>>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
>>>> we could/should make available faster.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
>>>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
>>>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
>>>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
>>>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
>>>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
>>>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
>>>>> trunk.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
>>>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
>>>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
>>>>> 1.6+, m3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Jamie
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>>>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>>>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>>>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>
>>>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
Putting on my cheerfully optimistic release management hat. It will
get there, it always does :)
Cheers,
Jamie
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And another one (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-567)...
> Slowly I'm asking myself if we ever gone get out KARAF-2.2.1...
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Achim Nierbeck
> <bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Oh,
>>
>> just found another one, which is just annoying but could be fixed easily
>> i guess
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-566
>>
>> regards, Achim
>>
>>> Mhm.. Since this thread is trailing off a little bit; just come back
>>> to the point: anyone any problem if I delay KARAF-482 and KARAF-504 to
>>> 3.x only?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x:
>>>> http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html
>>>>
>>>> He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that
>>>> might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into
>>>> being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it
>>>> to Karaf)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jamie
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
>>>>> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
>>>>> discussed
>>>>> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
>>>>> mailing-list
>>>>> for this :)
>>>>> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
>>>>> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
>>>>> switch
>>>>> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
>>>>> momentum on this :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Achim
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>>>>>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
>>>>>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
>>>>>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
>>>>>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
>>>>>> we could/should make available faster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
>>>>>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
>>>>>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
>>>>>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
>>>>>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
>>>>>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
>>>>>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
>>>>>>> trunk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
>>>>>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
>>>>>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
>>>>>>> 1.6+, m3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Jamie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>>>>>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>>>>>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>>>>>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>.
And another one (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-567)...
Slowly I'm asking myself if we ever gone get out KARAF-2.2.1...
Kind regards,
Andreas
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Achim Nierbeck
<bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Oh,
>
> just found another one, which is just annoying but could be fixed easily
> i guess
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-566
>
> regards, Achim
>
>> Mhm.. Since this thread is trailing off a little bit; just come back
>> to the point: anyone any problem if I delay KARAF-482 and KARAF-504 to
>> 3.x only?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x:
>>> http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html
>>>
>>> He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that
>>> might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into
>>> being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it
>>> to Karaf)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
>>>> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
>>>> discussed
>>>> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
>>>> mailing-list
>>>> for this :)
>>>> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
>>>> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
>>>> switch
>>>> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
>>>> momentum on this :)
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Achim
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>>>>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
>>>>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
>>>>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
>>>>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
>>>>> we could/should make available faster.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
>>>>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
>>>>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
>>>>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
>>>>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
>>>>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
>>>>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
>>>>>> trunk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
>>>>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
>>>>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
>>>>>> 1.6+, m3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Jamie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>>>>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>>>>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>>>>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>.
Oh,
just found another one, which is just annoying but could be fixed easily
i guess
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-566
regards, Achim
> Mhm.. Since this thread is trailing off a little bit; just come back
> to the point: anyone any problem if I delay KARAF-482 and KARAF-504 to
> 3.x only?
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x:
>> http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html
>>
>> He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that
>> might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into
>> being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it
>> to Karaf)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jamie
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
>>> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
>>> discussed
>>> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
>>> mailing-list
>>> for this :)
>>> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
>>> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
>>> switch
>>> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
>>> momentum on this :)
>>>
>>> Regards, Achim
>>>
>>> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>>>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
>>>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
>>>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
>>>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
>>>> we could/should make available faster.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
>>>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
>>>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
>>>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
>>>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
>>>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
>>>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
>>>>> trunk.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
>>>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
>>>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
>>>>> 1.6+, m3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Jamie
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>>>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>>>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>>>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>
>>>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>.
Mhm.. Since this thread is trailing off a little bit; just come back
to the point: anyone any problem if I delay KARAF-482 and KARAF-504 to
3.x only?
Kind regards,
Andreas
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x:
> http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html
>
> He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that
> might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into
> being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it
> to Karaf)
>
> Cheers,
> Jamie
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
>> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
>> discussed
>> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
>> mailing-list
>> for this :)
>> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
>> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
>> switch
>> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
>> momentum on this :)
>>
>> Regards, Achim
>>
>> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
>>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
>>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
>>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
>>> we could/should make available faster.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
>>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
>>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
>>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
>>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
>>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
>>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
>>>> trunk.
>>>>
>>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
>>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
>>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
>>>> 1.6+, m3.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jamie
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x:
http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html
He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that
might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into
being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it
to Karaf)
Cheers,
Jamie
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
> discussed
> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
> mailing-list
> for this :)
> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
> switch
> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
> momentum on this :)
>
> Regards, Achim
>
> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
>> we could/should make available faster.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>>>
>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>>>
>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
>>> trunk.
>>>
>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
>>> 1.6+, m3.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>
>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>
>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>.
I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also.
There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully
discussed
for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the
mailing-list
for this :)
>From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet.
Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do
switch
to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some
momentum on this :)
Regards, Achim
Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
> we could/should make available faster.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>>
>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>>
>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
>> trunk.
>>
>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
>> 1.6+, m3.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jamie
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Andreas
>>>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>.
Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I
think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already
(and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch
(which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which
we could/should make available faster.
Kind regards,
Andreas
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>
> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>
> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
> trunk.
>
> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
> 1.6+, m3.
>
> Cheers,
> Jamie
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Jamie,
> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
>
> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
> survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
>
> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
> trunk.
>
> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
> 1.6+, m3.
>
+1 from me :)
Achim
> Cheers,
> Jamie
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
>> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andreas
>>
Re: delay mvn 3 problems to 3.x?
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd
say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0.
I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the
development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus.
If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this
survey project can be bumped up the priority list.
I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release
already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to
be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on
trunk.
As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm
liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line,
we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK
1.6+, m3.
Cheers,
Jamie
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504,
> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon
> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially
> compatible to m2? WDYT?
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>