Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of asoldano@redhat.com designates
 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <537A1A42.1080109@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:50:42 +0200
From: Alessio Soldano <asoldano@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Short term plans/branching....
References: <330026BE-3799-4F6D-8459-092B03295F8F@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <330026BE-3799-4F6D-8459-092B03295F8F@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Fine with me

Thanks
Alessio

On 19/05/14 16:45, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Just wanted to throw out a quick discussion about how to manage the git repo for the short term.
>
> With the last 2.6.x release, we announced there would be one more release of that branch.  Thus, we need to keep that branch around.   To avoid having to merge to 3 fixes branches, I�d like to keep master on 3.0.1 until 2.6.15 is released.   At that point, we can create the 3.0.x-fixes branch and set master for 3.1.    Is there any problems with that?  Anything needed for 3.1 that needs to be put on master immediately?
>
> With 3.0.0 out, I expect a bit higher uptake of it and a possible influx of issues.   Thus, I�d like a relatively quick turnaround for 3.0.1.  Maybe 4-6 weeks.   At that point, we could do 3.0.1/2.7.12/2.6.15 releases at once and be done with 2.6.x.      Would that work for everyone?
>
>
> Once we start 3.1, I�d like to do a couple things:
> 1) Update to require Java7
> 2) Remove all the Jaxws 2.1 support stuff.   With being Java 7, we don�t need the various 2.2/2.1 profiles and differences and such.
> 3) *possibly* change the tooling to use the in-JDK JAXB XJC.   With recent versions of the JDK, the in-JDK versions are actually more up to date than the versions available in central.   Plus, this would fix some of the issues on Java8.   This MAY cause issue on IBM JDK�s.  Will need to investigate.  Possible wrap the impl via reflect calls like we do in the runtime.  In any case, this would drop a few dependencies as well.
> 4) Start investigating Jetty9 support.   This may be hard without breaking Jetty8.
> 5) With Java7, start using some of the new interfaces, the AutoClosable one being the main �nice to have�.
>
>
> Anyway, open for discussion.  :-)
>
>


-- 
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss