@Jean-Louis; How about this page: http://openejb.staging.apache.org/tomee-version-policies.html Is it okay for you guys? can it be linked to official TomEE documentation ?
Alex. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:30 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>wrote: > > On Dec 30, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Id like to break rest default config so 1.6 is better imo > > Why don't we have a discussion about breaking the default config. Can you > post a proposal on it? > > > -David > > > Le 30 déc. 2012 21:34, "Jean-Louis MONTEIRO" <jeano...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > >> Hi Alex, > >> > >> You are all welcome to share your needs and what you expect (and also to > >> help if you can ;-)). > >> > >> IMO, TomEE 1.x.y is only Java EE 6 dedicated. > >> The work on Java EE 7 will start Q2 2013 I guess or a bit after and it > >> should produce the 2.x.y of TomEE. > >> > >> Java EE 8, dunno for the moment, maybe a TomEE 3.x.y > >> > >> > >> Back to 1.x.y, the third digit is usually for maintenance (bugfix and > >> improvements). The second one is for new features and significant > changes. > >> Between 1.0.x and 1.5.0, we had a discussion all together and agreed > that > >> there were lot of new feature and improvements (see release notes where > all > >> should be clearer). We wanted to emphasis that huge work and decided to > >> jump in the version. > >> > >> I'm not proposing to jump again, I just wanted to know what community > and > >> users have in mind and like to see in next release to decide what > numbers > >> are better. > >> > >> If 1.5.2 is a new maintenance release and does not contain any big new > >> feature, I'm all ok to use that numbers. > >> I'm not aware of Tomcat producing a new version since our last release, > but > >> the 1.5.2 could embedded the new release if available as well as other > >> dependency upgrades. I have in mind at least CXF and maybe OpenJPA. > >> > >> Is it clearer? > >> If I badly interpreted your thoughts, apologize and lemme know. > >> > >> Jean-Louis > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2012/12/30 Alex The Rocker <alex.m3...@gmail.com> > >> > >>> Jean-Louis: > >>> > >>> This is a very serious topic for my company: we're releasing a product > >>> which we document that it is supported with Apache TomEE+ 1.5.x, x=>1. > >> The > >>> rationale for allowing our customers to use an higher "fix" version is > to > >>> benefit from Apache Tomcat security fixes. > >>> > >>> When our product was based on Apache Tomcat instead of TomEE we had the > >>> same type of support policy : for example we wrote that we supported > >> Apache > >>> Tomcat 7.0x, x=>23. > >>> > >>> I am very concerned by a TomEE 1.6.0 version which could put an end to > >> the > >>> 1.5.x series. > >>> > >>> Would it be possible for Apache TomEE team to stick to Apache Tomcat > >>> version conventions (too late for the middle number which could have > >> stayed > >>> to '0', so we should be at version 1.0.3 instead of 1.5.1) ? > >>> > >>> Otherwise, if a 1.6.0 version is actually planned (for Java EE 8 alpha > >>> support, why not), then please keep 1.5.x series actives for a (long). > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Alex. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > >> jeano...@gmail.com > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi guys, > >>>> > >>>> That are some painful bugs in 1.5.1. > >>>> They are fixed in the trunk. > >>>> > >>>> So the question here is: what are the plans for next releases? > >>>> > >>>> We have basically 2 options: > >>>> 1. try to push a new 1.5.2 by February or so > >>>> 2. push a 1.6.0 > >>>> > >>>> We don't have so much new features for now, so I'm quite sure, we will > >>> get > >>>> a 1.5.2 out. > >>>> Thoughts are welcome. > >>>> > >>>> Another question is what to put in? > >>>> As said previously, there are number of bugs fixed in trunk. > >>>> Anything else you wanna get in? > >>>> Any work (improvement, bugfixes, dependency updates, etc)? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jean-Louis > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jean-Louis > >> > >
