http://tomee.apache.org/developer/migration/tomee-1-to-7.html intends to solve that issue, we can add any point we hit/encounter
what else would be a blocker to make 1 EOL in June 2018? 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 20:17 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > 2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > >> regarding migration. >> There are 3 different main use cases afaict. >> 1.) TomEE standalone server, quite like Tomcat. Using 7.x instead 1.7.x >> should be a no-brainer without any need to change something within your >> application >> >> 2.) tomee-maven-plugin: change the groupId from org.apache.openejb to >> org.apache.tomee. Done >> > > > > >> 3.) openejb-core for unit tests. This gets a bit trickier as the various >> spec APIs from EE7 (tomee) and EE6 (your application) might clash. This can >> be solved with an exclude setting in the maven-surefire-plugin >> > > Hmm, just means we upgrade API or you think to something else? > > I'll start a page > > >> LieGrue,strub >> >> >> On Sunday, 18 June 2017, 18:51, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <[email protected] >> >: >> >> > Thanks for the feedback. I think at least some sort of migration guide >> is >> > needed as some settings have changed. It would be nice for people to >> find >> > out the easy way. Happy to discuss in another thread, but we should >> agree >> > when this will appear. >> > >> >> Which settings are you thinking about? >> >> >> > >> > I also think some visibility on what the EOL statement will actually >> say (I >> > guess it would be a paragraph or two) would help community discussion. >> > >> >> No more expectation from the core community (releases etc). So evolutions >> as best effort (no guarantee). >> >> >> > >> > I suspect you won't agree, but I think an EOL is a major announcement. A >> > reminder is good if the thread has gone quiet, but I think lazy >> concensus >> > is less good, unless several reminders have been sent. You have stated a >> > deadline of today, a Sunday - I think some folks may miss that and be >> too >> > late. I think mid week would be better to reduce the scope of "missing >> it". >> > If we got to mid week, and had a couple more reminders, the lazy >> concensus >> > view would seem more reasonable. >> > >> > Wouldn't you prefer to make the EOL statement with a few more +1's? >> > >> >> Sure, now i used past releases as prevision of this topic activity >> plannification and even with 5 reminders i wouldnt have got more so >> preferring to move forward now. However as said I'm happy to discuss each >> points and delay what was just a proposal. >> >> >> > >> > Jon >> > >> > On 18 Jun 2017 5:06 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > 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> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > >
