On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:47 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > I thought it would be useful to re-open the discussion on this. If there > is a better plan that the one we currently have I'd like to try and find > it. > > I'm happy to hold off on the current 10.0.0.0-M1 release for a few days > to give us time look for a better numbering scheme and so we have the > opportunity to pull the 10.0.0.0-M1 release if necessary. > > I have tried to express the various options I have seen proposed in a > similar way so we can compare them. If I have missed one or you think of > a different one then please post it. > > Option A: The current plan: > Jakarta EE 9: 10.0.0.x > Jakarta EE 10: 10.0.x (x>=1) > Jakarta EE 11: 11.0.x > Java EE 8 : 9.y.x (where y == major Tomcat version) > > > Option B: Continue with existing numbering > Jakarta EE 9: 10.0.x > Jakarta EE 10: 11.0.x > Jakarta EE 11: 12.0.x > Java EE 8 : 9.y.x (where y == major Tomcat version) > > > Option C: No stable Jakarta EE 9 release > Jakarta EE 9: 10.0.0-Mx > Jakarta EE 10: 10.0.x > Jakarta EE 11: 11.0.x > Java EE 8 : 9.y.x (where y == major Tomcat version) > > > Option D: > Jakarta EE 9: 10.0.x > Jakarta EE 10: 10.1.x > Jakarta EE 11: 11.0.x > Java EE 8 : 9.y.x (where y == major Tomcat version) > > > My own thoughts: > > I don't like option B because the off-by-one issue between Jakarta EE > and Tomcat. It is manageable at the moment but I worry that it will > cause confusion once we have the 9.y.x branch. > -1 for option B also because the EOL of that "major" Tomcat 10 branch may be way too quick for a major branch. > > I don't like option C because I think we need a stable, supported, > passing the TCK Jakarta EE 9 release. Also, Jakarta EE 10 is meant to > follow shortly after Jakarta EE 9 but what if it doesn't? > > For me, the choice is between A and D. If Jakarta EE 10 is very soon > after Jakarta EE 9 then I think option A is better. However, D isn't > that far behind and as soon as Jakarta EE 10 doesn't follow shortly > after Jakarta EE 9 I think D begins to look better. As I think about it, > the EOL decision we make for Jakarta EE 9 support depends a lot on how > quickly Jakarta EE 10 follows and I think D gives us more flexibility. > Finally, D is more consistent with how we have done things in the past > (4.1.x, 5.5.x, 8.5.x etc) > D looks good to me for the flexibility. I suppose/hope/would think the people at Eclipse will want to provide something useful sooner rather than later, so A seemed acceptable to me, but you never know. You know, three years later, you could find yourself still releasing 10.0.0.26. Ooops. 10.0.26 would look better, if that unfortunate scenario happens. The 10.0 branch does imply some amount of support though, so it likely won't be possible to phase it out as fast as in Option A or C. It's not nearly as bad as B of course. C would look the best to me if there was a guarantee on the EE 10 release schedule being quick. Thinking about it again today, I think that's a huge unreasonable risk. Rémy > > Thoughts? > > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
