Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-camel-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-camel-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 11CD7EFBB for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:26:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 79594 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2013 13:26:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-camel-dev-archive@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 79518 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2013 13:26:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@camel.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 79487 invoked by uid 99); 21 Feb 2013 13:26:54 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:26:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of janstey@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.44] (HELO mail-bk0-f44.google.com) (209.85.214.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:26:47 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id j4so4186332bkw.31 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:26:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=plTMpxVFmTh6JglXCr5B81RDC52sAs4UaKN+OpHNkhM=; b=AZnRF8xmZSRSdQ2mcgzBLJ31frE7Ja7nhlH40AsZhAdIo5o+DvZsll8IYriJLioZod UpgtSIcGUUGrm5pxXE409bwVp6vSHkSZysA2AjNToEHDnHFiIy+zDUBmoAcGWxZCJmX8 klmiOBluuGmjqN09jVDz0X10aL5VEQszEBGRBaeqyhqq5BK4DYiN1G250lAObq3q6D5T dduIJ51d9+MGBGOHSrmpcysBuzlQ0I328zBazvEabC1W0ZLranEQb89bmgh0KDWMAWNw fda1SEh/MCv1wAxBQG1JjM2LGo2qUEA7MJmG3qEAh1Je4iB61QzmNZacxJ/Jd22h5Vws FYJw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.204.145.195 with SMTP id e3mr10661160bkv.27.1361453186467; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:26:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.35.80 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:26:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:56:26 -0330 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Camel 3 discussion] Components releases From: Jon Anstey To: dev@camel.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cb4708efd6c04d63c0527 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0015175cb4708efd6c04d63c0527 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I wouldn't imagine these separate component releases would be able to have differing dependency versions anyway. So no win there. We would get into the situation of having multiple versions of the same lib being used across Camel. That is one of the nice things about releasing everything at once, most of the time we can align the dependency versions. I don't yet like the idea of releasing the components separately either, sounds like it would be a lot of work for little gain. Maybe in the future we will need this but I don't think we need it now. I'm with Christian on postponing this discussion to a later 3.x release. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Henryk Konsek wrote: > > If the goal is to deliver fixes to users, > > why not increase the release frequency of micro releases ? > > Micro releases don't include new features added to the components. Nor > support updates of the version of the dependencies. > > -- > Henryk Konsek > http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com > -- Cheers, Jon --------------- Red Hat, Inc. Email: janstey@redhat.com Web: http://redhat.com Twitter: jon_anstey Blog: http://janstey.blogspot.com Author of Camel in Action: http://manning.com/ibsen --0015175cb4708efd6c04d63c0527--