+1 I would prefer a tons of -1 from users than committers (actually commiters know how to sort it out so we shouldnt care much of them for such things ;)).
Now factually vote passed, no new input made the overall debate face changed so still think we can move forward. I perfectly get - more than you think - the manager constraint but it will still be there whatever we do for now. Also if selecting a product is only done on the TCK compliance I'm happy to let people use some other $ervers (or if the reason is the logo is using this #abcdef color), quality is not always there but they are often expensive enough to convince a manager and sadly lock a developer team to old and buggy versions but whatever constraints are coming from non dev people I don't want TomEE to be a hostage of such a discussion. This belongs to vendors and commercial companies not to open source IMHO. Side note: EE 7 spec have been listed there http://tomee.apache.org/comparison.html . Of course it doesn't mean any TCK compliance but it shows the area we worked on - at least the ones I know about. If I missed any feel free to complete it. If you think the formatting can be better feel free to play with the dom too, wanted to avoid another table which basically duplicates a lot of noise but that's only my voice and I'm for making it clearer if possible. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2016-05-03 17:58 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>: > Thanks for the feedback. > > We encourage everyone to vote, as a user, as a contributor, as a > contributor or as anyone willing to help the project. > User perspective is also important for the project. > > Jean-Louis > > -- > Jean-Louis Monteiro > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > http://www.tomitribe.com > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:49 PM, ross.cohen <ross.cohen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Le 29 avr. 2016 00:49, "ross.cohen" <ross.cohen.rc@> a écrit : > > > > > > > Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to > different > > > people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0 > > release > > > to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which > it > > > clearly was not. Looks to me like a finer-grained vote is needed to > > figure > > > out exactly what people want as part of 7.0.0 release. > > > > > > > Clearly stated we were speaking of master in the thread when Jon asked > so I > > kind of disagree there. > > > > > Personally, I think David is correct in saying that a release without > > some > > > kind of positive JEE 7 compatibility statement is a serious mistake. I > > know > > > the TCK is out of the question right now, but that simply means you > need > > to > > > invent an alternative compatibility statement: "Apache-Certified > > Compliant > > > to Web Profile Specifications" (or some such). > > > > > > > --This doesnt mean anything to me like that. Being ASF implies ASF > quality > > --and we cant claim anything Oracle related so Im lost with what you > target > > --there. > > > > To the vast majority of prospective users any major version change will > > strongly > > imply that Tomee conforms to the JEE 7 Web spec. The fact that Tomee is > > jumping > > from 2.x to 7.0 seals the deal. I would guess that most people here > voted > > for the > > move to a "7" release under the impression that it would conform to to > JEE > > 7 > > web > > spec -- it's impossible to imagine any other reason for skipping the > > intervening > > integers. > > > > I'm not a legal person, but it seems like one should be able to say that > > Tomee > > conforms to the specifications belonging to the JEE standard released by > > Oracle. > > It is a mere statement of fact. It would be nice to have an "Apache > > Certified" > > statement and symbol/stamp; for some reason this sort of thing helps a > lot > > of > > managers sleep better at night. Remember that programmers often have to > > fight > > for the software they want to use. Frequently, our managers are not very > > well > > informed, and are easily flim-flammed by Leviathan's representatives. > > It's > > only later > > that they learn that Leviathan "quality and support" means endless emails > > and > > incompetence -- until a month later when someone with a brain finally > looks > > at your > > problem. By that time, of course, you have found a wonky, brittle > > work-around. > > > > Compared to the behemoths, the support here is god-like and wonderful. > But > > for > > some reason the promises of Leviathan feel more real to most managers > than > > the > > actualities of open source. Like deer, most IT managers are wonderfully > > timid, and > > easily startled into Leviathan's camp. Once there, like donkeys, they > are > > wonderfully > > adept at planting their feet, if they feel you are trying to lead them > > towards anything > > remotely "unsafe". So, if Tomee could have some kind of clear > > statement/guarantee > > of conformity to the specs (in whatever form), it would really, really, > > really, help us > > guys in the corporate trenches fight against the Leviathan FUD. > > > > > > --We ll clearly not get any EE 7 compatibility on the site. Best we can > do > > is > > --to list API/impl we have of EE 7. > > > > This would be a great place to begin! It is something I can bring my > > manager. > > > > --Last point: your vote would have been very welcomed but now vote passed > > and > > --I strongly think we can discuss for 10 years without providing anything > > to > > --users so more time passes more I think we could use the date as version > > it > > --wouldnt be an issue but we have to release Final versions to stop > holding > > --tomee from being considered by vendors and tools. > > > > Although I have been following Tomee closely for over a year, I haven't > > contributed > > anything to the project yet, so I didn't really feel entitled to vote. > > Thus, I see your > > invitation as incredibly generous -- too generous, perhaps. I was just > a > > little surprised > > at the outcome. > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678328.html > > Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
