2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <[email protected]> :
> On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > @Jon: please propose a policy then (same as rejecting a release, "no" is > valid only if an alternative is proposed or a string blocker is found ;)). > > > I feel I stated my concerns pretty clearly. I didn't just reply -1 and walk > away, which is what your comment above is suggesting I did. > Ok then understand it as i dont read it as an exit path for the project. > > But, allow me to rephrase anyway - beyond a "drop dead" date, what exactly > is your policy? > > How many releases do you see in that time? > As much as needed - up to request. Concretely if no user asks for it no release, if users ask each month then ~12 (pby more ~10 realisticly), not sure we would do more but sounds way more than enough. It is in maintainance anyway so "when needed". > > What documentation for migration are we going to provide? > Any doc needed but have to admit no doc should be needed. This is quite parallel to this track so if you see any lack please open a thread and we'll solve it. > > Do we still intend to fix bugs and/or security issues after that date? > No, EOL is exactly that: this soft is no more part of active code after the date. Side note: already the case since few years actually if you check our jira :(. > > Would we continue to accept patches from the community after that date? > In best effort mode so no engagement but i dont see why we wouldnt. Maybe something unclear: source will not be modified, moved, put read only etc...just releases and maintainance is no more expectable from tomee project itself. > > Your plan basically is to just stop, if I have read it correctly. I have > concerns about that, which I have stated. > I understand but it was to stop *next year* and we need a plan anyway. 1.7 has several important issues due to the non maintainance it gets since > 2 years. > > My proposal is simple; answer the questions and concerns about your > proposal and discuss it fully within the community rather than announce > something on the website with a single +1. I don't think that is > unreasonable. > Was not the idea, as stated in the topic it was a discussion but no activity in > 10 days requires to take an action, either ack it by default or .... well I don't see any alternative to take the active feedback. Happy you catch up it now Jon and let's discuss based on previous points - as this thread was intended for. > > Jon > > > Realisticly 1.7 is no more maintained (the cxf coming exceptional release > doesn't help since all the stack is outdated now and coming to EOL and > reactivity is too long - we have > 100 bugs we don't backport but affect > 1.7). > The upgrade path is really a noop on our side thanks to javaee policy. If > you are thinking about something in particular happy to add it on the site. > > EOL doesn't mean we don't release, we can literally do 120 releases of > 1.7.x if we ack the proposed EOL. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > rmannibucau> > | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > 2017-06-18 15:43 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > > > So probably one more 1.7.x release and then let it fade out? > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > Am 18.06.2017 um 13:55 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore < > > [email protected]>: > > > > > > I object. There are plenty of folks still using 1.7.x, and we've ported > > > over various fixes from master without too much trouble. > > > > > > My concern is that those on 1.7.x might be concerned to see it EOL'd. > I'd > > > like to see the upgrade path documented and a policy on fixes applied > to > > > 1.7.x documented and discussed before an EOL announcement. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > On 18 Jun 2017 10:51 am, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> if noone objects before tomorrow i'll update the site with that policy > > >> then. > > >> > > >> > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > >> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > > >> rmannibucau> | > > >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > > >> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > >> > > >> 2017-06-17 21:55 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > > >> > > >>> +1. > > >>> > > >>> 1.x has quite a few design shortcomings and 7.0.x is a backward > > >> compatible > > >>> drop in replacement. > > >>> And 8.x is just around the corner as well... > > >>> > > >>> LieGrue, > > >>> strub > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Am 06.06.2017 um 17:58 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > > >> [email protected] > > >>>> : > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi guys, > > >>>> > > >>>> it is harder and harder to maintain 1.x branch since almost no > library > > >> is > > >>>> maintained. Request is also decreasing for that version. Tomcat will > > >> also > > >>>> EOL tomcat 8 next year (1.x is on tomcat 7 which still dont have an > > >>>> official EOL I think but never good to rely on an outdated version, > > >>> Tomcat > > >>>> 7 is N-3 now). > > >>>> > > >>>> Therefore do we want to plan an EOL for 1.7 that we don't develop > > >> anymore > > >>>> anyway? What about june next year? Should let people more than > enough > > >>> time > > >>>> to migrate to TomEE 7. > > >>>> > > >>>> wdyt? > > >>>> > > >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > >>>> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > > >>> rmannibucau> | > > >>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > > >>>> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
