Done. Thanks Alex. Jean-Louis
2013/1/6 Alex The Rocker <[email protected]> > Hello, > > Can this http://openejb.staging.apache.org/tomee-version-policies.htmlpage > be linked from official from TomEE documentation links page, if you all > agree about its content? > > Alex > > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Alex The Rocker <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > @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 <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >> On Dec 30, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > >> 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >> >> > >> >>> 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 < > >> >> [email protected] > >> >>>> 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 > >> >> > >> > >> > > > -- Jean-Louis
