[mailto:cschneider...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Christian Schneider
Sent: Montag, 15. April 2013 15:24
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
I am also +1 for adding xkms for 3.0.
Not sure it makes sense to add it for a bugfix release like 2.7.x. If
3.0
-
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
Sent: Donnerstag, 11. April 2013 17:17
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts about a 2.8 release (or not)…
I never really did follow up on this.
Looking at the responses, I think we're in something close to an agreement
that a 2.8
I am also +1 for adding xkms for 3.0.
Not sure it makes sense to add it for a bugfix release like 2.7.x. If
3.0 is delayed we could always cut a 2.8 and backport it there.
Christian
On 15.04.2013 14:52, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
+1, it would be another excellent addition to the security
I never really did follow up on this.
Looking at the responses, I think we're in something close to an agreement that
a 2.8 cannot be done right now (or it doesn't make sense to do so) and moving
toward 3.0 make sense.
Thus, I'd like to go ahead an make trunk to be targeting 3.0. The
+1 for skipping 2.8 and releasing 3.0 end of this year.
@Sergei: let us to discuss how I could help with 2.0 TCK.
Regards,
Andrei.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
Sent: Montag, 25. März 2013 19:19
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Thoughts about a 2.8
Dan's quote: According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really
cannot release code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would
not).
I'm confused -- Apache FOP, Maven and Tomcat can release whenever they want,
even though none of them even remotely pass the JAX-RS TCK either.
. The client implementations tests will be done later in the year
I'll get back to you once I do an initial run later on
Thanks Sergey
Regards,
Andrei.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
Sent: Montag, 25. März 2013 19:19
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Thoughts about
I'm also for holding the 2.8 release under this circumstances. IMHO
there're times when it's not possible to go on with time-boxed final
releases and a stream of Alpha/Beta/milestone releases before the major
one is the proper approach.
Btw, I'd really like the move to WSS4J 2.0 to be in a major
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Jeff Genenderjgenen...@apache.org wrote:
Or… don't claim its a certified release…
That may work too. One problem is that JAX-RS 2.0 is nearly finalized
but not yet and I'm not sure when Apache will get the final TCK after that.
As far as JAX-RS 2.0 is
I'm also +1 with this. I would like to merge the WSS4J 2.0 branch to trunk
and switch trunk to be 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.
Colm.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Freeman Fang freeman.f...@gmail.comwrote:
+1 for skipping 2.8 now and releasing 3.0 end of this year.
－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red
We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8).
However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time.
Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is
updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10 to the RC level.
Or… don't claim its a certified release…
Jeff
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org wrote:
We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8).
However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time.
Looking at trunk, the
Hi,
It makes sense that a 2.8 would bring significant and complete
implementation of new features with possibly some broken api
compatibility (although less than what we could do for a 3.0).
I think delaying until later in the year and instead focus on ensuring
that the 2.7.X, 2.6.x and 2.5.x
+1 for skipping 2.8 now and releasing 3.0 end of this year.
－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/
Twitter: freemanfang
Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com
http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042
weibo:
14 matches
Mail list logo
