Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-karaf-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-karaf-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9352918E28 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 65346 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2016 12:12:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-karaf-dev-archive@karaf.apache.org Received: (qmail 65308 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2016 12:12:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@karaf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@karaf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@karaf.apache.org Received: (qmail 65297 invoked by uid 99); 4 Apr 2016 12:12:57 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 12:12:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id C338E180535 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:12:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.28 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.28 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D8VDZUb_ifYF for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id A8B615FB06 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:12:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mfilter24-d.gandi.net (mfilter24-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.152]) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D071720D6 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 14:12:47 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter24-d.gandi.net Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.196]) by mfilter24-d.gandi.net (mfilter24-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M042c8RWl7jg for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 14:12:45 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 82.238.224.4 Received: from [192.168.134.16] (bre91-1-82-238-224-4.fbx.proxad.net [82.238.224.4]) (Authenticated sender: jb@nanthrax.net) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 09FAD1720C2 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 14:12:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Karaf 4.0.5 release To: dev@karaf.apache.org References: <56FDCDA2.9030007@nanthrax.net> <570223D9.2060803@die-schneider.net> <570259A3.8010509@nanthrax.net> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jean-Baptiste_Onofr=c3=a9?= Message-ID: <57025A24.1020603@nanthrax.net> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 14:12:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <570259A3.8010509@nanthrax.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit By the way, what I'm testing now is if the standard Karaf distribution is affected: if the standard Karaf distribution doesn't work, then I will vote -1 and I will cancel the vote. Else, I think we can live with it up to 4.0.6. Regards JB On 04/04/2016 02:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Markus, > > I agree with you, and I can understand you don't want to give an +1. > However, do you consider really as a release blocker ? If so, -1 makes > sense, if you can leave it waiting 4.0.6, then +0 could work. > > Regards > JB > > On 04/04/2016 01:54 PM, Markus Rathgeb wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am using Karaf to create custom distributions. That distributions >> are running on embedded devices that does not grant to have internet >> access. So the custom distribution must be able to start without >> access to a public maven repository. >> Using the staged K405 this is broken. >> >> If I am using the karaf-maven-plugin 4.0.4 and the karaf features >> 4.0.5 it is working as expected. >> But using different Karaf versions (of plugin and features) to create >> the custom distribution feels a little bit wired. >> >> If I will ever find a bug, then I have to report to mix different >> Karaf versions. >> Is this an expected use case? >> >> I do not like to vote a "-1" here, but can't give a +1, too. >> > -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbonofre@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com