Ok, let's be concrete, who will implement the specs on tomee 7 and under which deadline? I think it is the main point to recenter on tomee 8 where all the work is already done and investment is very low.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le jeu. 9 août 2018 à 08:49, Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> a écrit : > I also don't get why there is resistance to backport if we can and if a > contriibutor/committer is wiling to. > We have most of our users not using TomEE because it's not finished or > certified. > > They would certainely be happy to being able to use MP on a stable TomEE > version. > > -- > Jean-Louis Monteiro > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > http://www.tomitribe.com > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:33 AM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Good morning :) > > > > > On Aug 8, 2018, at 10:53 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <cgerdo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> We can definitely vote, but would be great if we can way a day or two > to > > >> discuss what we'd be voting and what our status is and how to best > > address > > >> our concerns. > > >> > > > +1 > > > > I maybe jumped the gun. I'm happy to trash the vote I put up if we feel > > that's best. Or we let it continue and consider it informational and > > non-binding. > > > > >> We all universally agree we want MP in TomEE 8 and are actively > working > > on > > >> it > > >> > > > I am not sure there is an active MP work in TomEE > > > > It's not roaring active, but config and jwt are there and passing in > TomEE > > 8 and 7.1. Roberto has done a good chunk of that integration work, > > obviously Jean-Louis a large part of the JWT support, Jon has indicated > in > > the past a willingness to spin the release. > > > > > My understanding of the concern is that we end up ignoring TomEE 8, > which > > >> is a concern I would share. > > >> > > > I did not understand what you mean by ignoring TomEE 8 .Can you please > a > > > bit elaborate? Who ignore? > > > > This is me attempting to understand the objection to a TomEE 7.1 and > > apparently doing a bad job of it :) > > > > I got the impression the concern was that energy would be shifted away > > from TomEE 8 to a TomEE 7.1, i.e. TomEE 8 would suffer and be ignored as > a > > result. If that's not the case, I suspect I need someone who is > concerned > > about a 7.1 to say more specifically the concern is. > > > > > Perhaps the most effective vote would be to vote to require those who > do > > >> work on a TomEE 7.1 to also submit the same PR to TomEE 8. If a PR > comes > > >> into TomEE 7.1 only and that work is needed in TomEE 8, but there > isn't > > a > > >> PR, we reject it. > > >> > > > -1. Different people can work on TomEE 7.1 and TomEE 8. We need to > > > differentiate TomEE 7.1 from TomEE 8. TomEE 7.1 is just in there to > only > > > include MP1. We don't want to wait TomEE 7.1 for TomEE 8. > > > > I'm ok with us not being that strict. I only proposed it as a compromise > > to address concerns. I have a growing awareness I haven't clearly > > understood the concern well enough to address it. > > > > I'll shut my mouth for a bit and re-open my ears, hopefully something > good > > will jump in. :) > > > > > > -David > > > > >
