Hi all, just to give a short additional note here:
We are currently waiting for a Johnzon 2.0.1 vote to pass [1], which I expect to be the case after Eastern has passed. If no one objects, I would like to start the process to get a milestone release out of the "main" branch rather quickly (i.e. in the upcoming week(s)) regardless of the outcome of the discussion in [2]. Are there any objections against it? Gruß Richard [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/ph2r1xkt8f5j4n9kdkoosqv3dw3chnzr [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/mh36qgdph4rrlpgd48oq5cvdlqr6t12r Am Montag, dem 25.03.2024 um 10:44 +0100 schrieb Richard Zowalla: > Hello everyone, > > Here is an update on the current progress of EE10, as the list has > been > a bit quiet for a few weeks now due to discussions on the lists of > our > dependencies. > > We are currently blocked by the SNAPSHOT dependency towards BatchEE. > The good thing is that a VOTE for 1.0.4 is currently running and will > hopefully pass in the next few days, so we can move forward on our > side > and finally prepare a first milestone release of TomEE 10. > > # Why 1.0.4 and not 2.0.0 (as it passed the EE10 Batch TCK)? > > We have a chicken'n'egg problem on the BatchEE side with > TomEE/OpenEJB. > We cannot release BatchEE 2.0.0 without a TomEE 10 release artifact > to > avoid dependency ona SNAPSHOT. As TomEE 10 is CDI 4, we had to apply > a > fix in BatchEE 1.0.4 to be able to use the Jakarta relocated BatchEE > artifact. As soon as 1.0.4 is out, I will add that + a test to > "main". > > > # Next steps > > Next steps (after the milestone release) will be (and might be a good > point for contributions): > > - Set up the remaining TCKs + signature tests inside of TomEE > - If there is enough interest, there might be potential for > synchronized (remote) sessions here to bootstrap people in working on > it (see discussion on the user@ list) > > - Get a picture of the current TCK status > - Start filling missing pieces with code or challenge obscure tests > ;-) > > We might also need to look into our dependencies (esp. CXF) to see, > if > we need to shift some resources into getting CXF 4.1.x out of the > door. > I know, that they are working hard on it. > > > Gruß > Richard
