2017-06-19 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <[email protected]> :
> Firstly, I note the page Romain started - thank you for listening to my > feedback. I'd be happy to test instructions and contribute to that page. I > suspect some DBCP(2) settings are different so we should call those out. > I'll also try and help build it out into a step by step guide. > Hmm, database pool can need there own thread but current doc basically says "read the pool doc" cause each time we copied it, we ended up messing more than solving in term of user experience so I'm not sure we should do this exercise. That said +1 to add a point saying it should be validated. Tomcat pool being the default we shouldn't be too much affected in "prod". > > Secondly, I have been thinking about the EOL. I personally really dislike > the term 'End of life' for an Open Source project / branch. The branch will > ultimately live on while there are committers / contributors whether > individual or organizations that are prepared to provide patches. The > OpenEJB Eclipse Plugin could be thought of as "End Of Life", but if someone > showed up on the mailing list wanting to use it with the latest version of > Eclipse, and it didn't work (which I expect is the case), or found a bug, > truthfully, I would be simply delighted to update it - so in that regard it > isn't EOL. > Agree but think not using EOL would be misleading. What we want is to: 1. show 1.x is not more active 2. 1.x is no more maintained (and once again this is not linked to our only will in term of OS ecosystem) 3. you should migrate to 7 I'm fine detailling it in the announce but not sure if using a more accurate term (EOS - end of support ?) wouldn't be more misleading :s > > Similarly, if someone / an organization wanted to contribute and maintain > 1.7.x, then there shouldn't really be any blocker to them doing so, and > therefore it also wouldn't be EOL. > Well the OS side is a blocker. This means 1.x needs to live with a tons of fork which should be ack by tomee project before being an option. > > I do, however, appreciate that there is a desire for people to migrate to > the latest version, as there is more activity there in terms of later specs > and new functionality, and I also appreciate the issue where dependencies > 1.7.x uses may not be updated any more. > > I'd like to make the suggestion that we give an honest statement about each > version available, in order to help facilitate decision making. As to what > "honest statement" means... well I think we'd need to discuss and agree the > specific statements. Off the top of my head, it could be something like: > > Pre-1.7.x: No longer being updated within the community. > 1.7.x: Stable, certified, supports Java EE 6 Web Profile. Receives security > fixes, occasional feature updates and backports, and bug fixes. Last > commit: yyyy-MM-dd, last release: yyyy-MM-dd. N.B. some dependencies (e.g. > <list here>) no longer receive updates. Consider upgrading to 7.0, see the > migration guide here: http://tomee.apache.org/........ > 7.x: Stable, GA, supports Java EE 7 Web Profile. Actively developed, > receives security fixes, numerous feature updates and bug fixes. Last > commit: yyyy-MM-dd, last release: yyyy-MM-dd > 8.x: In progress, not yet GA, supports Java EE 8 Web Profile. Consider this > to be ahead of "bleeding edge". Last commit: yyyy-MM-dd, last release: > yyyy-MM-dd > > Hmm, this looks really awesome and close to what we should go with IMHO but experience shows it is not as reliable as it is written to. Maybe we should rephrase it more in a way saying "maintained as best effort allows and when some companies want, will be EOL [next year]" - "EOL" and "next year" to replace by this thread outcome indeed. What I want to avoid here is the understanding 1.7 will get backports or security fixes systematically which never have been the case - not blaming since I'm a lot responsible of it but just trying to be realistic with our resources. > Thoughts? > > Jon > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Andy Gumbrecht <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > -1 > > > > I would welcome an EOL announcement at the end of the year (with a years > > notice), but not right now. That's too much pressure. So to make that > > clear, I would announce EOL on the 1st Jan.18 and EOL is then 1st Jan > 2019 > > - That gives everyone plenty of time to create detailed documentation on > > the site that targets everyone, and then plenty of time to migrate. > > > > We could make a pre-EOL announcement that details the above plan. An > > announcement of the planned announcement so to say - That would enable > > contribution and discussion regarding the EOL effort by the community > > rather than being a snap decision. > > > > Andy. > > > > On 18 June 2017 at 20:36, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Andy Gumbrecht > > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > >
