I'm also for holding the 2.8 release under this circumstances. IMHO there're times when it's not possible to go on with time-boxed "final" releases and a stream of Alpha/Beta/milestone releases before the major one is the proper approach. Btw, I'd really like the move to WSS4J 2.0 to be in a major release (3.0) Cheers Alessio
On 03/25/2013 07:19 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8). > However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time. > Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is > updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level. However, it's not > complete yet. Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x. The > other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but that > isn't ready for for release yet either. (and has some backwards compat > issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line) > > According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot > "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not). > Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release. We can release > things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release. > Since we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying > attention to us pretty closely right now. > > So, what am I getting at? In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd > either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone > jump in full force and get it to pass the TCK. I really don't see either > happening. Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton > of work. Thus, my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and > concentrate on bigger things for our Oct/Nov release. Possibly make that a > CXF 3.0 release instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few > things (like change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS > users), etc… We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as > well. If we go this route, we could likely start a series of "beta" > releases or similar in June or so to get people looking at it and testing > with it. > > Any thoughts? > -- Alessio Soldano Web Service Lead, JBoss
