On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:09:14 +0200
Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Karel Piwko
<kpiwko(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I'd prefer a) unless you plan to regularly release milestones of b) into
> Maven
> Central. Relying on snapshots in demos and tests is a PITA.
of course there will be an "android-push.jar" (library) on maven central
So the original question can be translated to: "Should we continue developing in
master or in a feature branch?"
> And this looks like
> a lot of effort, so branch might be living its own life for a very long
> time.
>
> Karel
>
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:58:57 -0400
> Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Y'all,
> >
> > So there has been some concerns with the complexity of the build
> > especially where including the Google GCM (push) libraries are
> > concerned. Additionally there have been some requests for a separate
> > "push" module which won't need the full aerogear android
library.
> >
> > The full modularization of the library along with several other
> > improvements is scheduled for the "2.0" epic.
> >
> > So my question is a) Should we make a 2.0 which is only the
> > modularization sooner and iterate on that a few times before we include
> > our improvements in a 3.0 or b) Should we create a "fork" project
which
> > is only a push module? This new project will get merged back into the
> > main project when we have our complete modularizations.
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>