karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Charles Moulliard <ch0...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: WebConsole versioning
Date Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:05:43 GMT
Keep things simple and adopt same convention as cellar

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Andreas Pieber <anpieber@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm with Lukasz on that one; we should keep our releases as simple as
> possible, even if this means some more cherry-picking between the
> various branches. Independently, after getting some good portion of
> sleep and some more time to think about this issue I think we should
> walk down the same road as cellar: using 2.x for karaf 2.x support and
> 3.x for karaf 3 support (although this limits our version range
> according to semver.org). An option around this problem might be to
> add an additional version behind; e.g. starting with and
> for the first releases; or in other words
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Ɓukasz Dywicki <luke@code-house.org>
> wrote:
> > Once again I back with WebConsole topic. As we plan to support bot 2.x
> and 3.x line. Current trunk (0.3.0-SNAPSHOT) of webconsole supports 2.x and
> I am about to start 3.x branch to get karaf trunk also supported. The
> problem is that we can not have the same version for both Karaf versions
> due changes in package names and so on. So the WebConsole must have two
> different versions, one for Karaf 2.x and second for 3.x.
> >
> > Another option is to make *core* of webconsole Karaf version agnostic,
> but then we still have submodules which have to support different versions
> of Karaf & OSGi runtime. Currently thing which breaks compability of 2.x vs
> 3.x is JAAS stuff and move of some packages to jaas.boot. In my opinion
> it's easier to manage release process with one version per branch, not like
> Aries does - a version per module.
> >
> > On IRC we had few options, one was classifier, another was to start with
> 2.x version for Karaf 2.x and 3.x for Karaf 3.x - just like we have with
> Cellar.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lukasz

Charles Moulliard
Apache Committer / Sr. Pr. Consultant at FuseSource.com
Twitter : @cmoulliard
Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message