You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> on 2017/06/06 15:58:06 UTC
[DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
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official EOL I think but never good to rely on an outdated version, Tomcat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>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
I read it as:
1. we need 1 year of delay before it is actually EOL - which was the
proposal
2. we need doc - which has been done for the known part
Concretely I don't see how much it is different from the original plan
(which needs to be translated by 1 month now) until there is a *string*
commitment we'll get 0.1 FTE on 1 year working on that topic so on my side
I'd say better to do it earlier instead of delaying it against the fact we
don't maintain it.
Don't forget we'll surely move master on TomEE 8 soon and I don't see
current activity maintaining so much versions - last 6 years proved me
being right :(.
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>
2017-06-19 15:42 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>:
> -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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> > >
> > >> 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 <
> > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jgallimore@tomitribe.com
> > >> >:
> > >>
> > >> > 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" <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > >> > > :
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> > > > 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
> > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > >> >:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > 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 <
> > >> > > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > 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" <
> > >> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > 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
> > >> > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > >> > > >:
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>> +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 <
> > >> > > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > >>>> :
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>> 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
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>.
Same view here.
Fine with me to apply patches (security for instance) but no active
development
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:41 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> My view is still the same. I'm still willing to patch and release from
> 1.7.x. At the stage, I don't think we could consider getting it working
> with Java 11, and I wouldn't actively develop this branch, but I'd be
> willing to apply fixes and patches to it where possible.
>
> Jon
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Roberto Cortez <radcortez@yahoo.com.invalid
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I’m sorry for digging back this old thread.
> >
> > I think we never ended up making a decision on this, and a year and a
> half
> > as passed since we discussed this.
> >
> > So, I would like to bring to the table again the discussion around
> > supporting TomEE 1.x and EOL.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Roberto
> >
> > > On 30 Jun 2017, at 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > As mentionned tomcat 8.0 EOL has been announced, here is the
> interesting
> > > part of it:
> > >
> > > "
> > > The Apache Tomcat team announces that support for Apache Tomcat 8.0.x
> > > will end on 30 June 2018.
> > >
> > > This means that after 30 June 2018:
> > > - releases from the 8.0.x branch are highly unlikely
> > > - bugs affecting only the 8.0.x branch will not be addressed
> > > - security vulnerability reports will not be checked against the 8.0.x
> > > branch
> > >
> > > Three months later (i.e. after 30 September 2017)
> > > - the 8.0.x download links will be removed
> > > - the latest 8.0.x release will be removed from the mirror system
> > > - the 8.0.x branch in svn will move from /tomcat/tc8.0.x to
> > > /tomcat/archive/tc8.0.x
> > > - the links to the 8.0.x documentation will be removed from
> > > tomcat.apache.org
> > > "
> > >
> > > We are already on 8.5 so not directly impacted for 7.x but think we can
> > > take it as a good example for 1.x.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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>
> > >
> > > 2017-06-19 16:14 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-06-19 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> 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 <
> > agumbrecht@tomitribe.com
> > >>>>
> > >>> 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 <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> > >>>> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >>>> :
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg
> <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > >>>> :
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 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 <
> > >>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >>>>> jgallimore@tomitribe.com
> > >>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 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" <
> > >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >>>>>>>>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <
> > >>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>> <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > >>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <
> > >>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>> <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > >>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
My view is still the same. I'm still willing to patch and release from
1.7.x. At the stage, I don't think we could consider getting it working
with Java 11, and I wouldn't actively develop this branch, but I'd be
willing to apply fixes and patches to it where possible.
Jon
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I’m sorry for digging back this old thread.
>
> I think we never ended up making a decision on this, and a year and a half
> as passed since we discussed this.
>
> So, I would like to bring to the table again the discussion around
> supporting TomEE 1.x and EOL.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
> > On 30 Jun 2017, at 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > As mentionned tomcat 8.0 EOL has been announced, here is the interesting
> > part of it:
> >
> > "
> > The Apache Tomcat team announces that support for Apache Tomcat 8.0.x
> > will end on 30 June 2018.
> >
> > This means that after 30 June 2018:
> > - releases from the 8.0.x branch are highly unlikely
> > - bugs affecting only the 8.0.x branch will not be addressed
> > - security vulnerability reports will not be checked against the 8.0.x
> > branch
> >
> > Three months later (i.e. after 30 September 2017)
> > - the 8.0.x download links will be removed
> > - the latest 8.0.x release will be removed from the mirror system
> > - the 8.0.x branch in svn will move from /tomcat/tc8.0.x to
> > /tomcat/archive/tc8.0.x
> > - the links to the 8.0.x documentation will be removed from
> > tomcat.apache.org
> > "
> >
> > We are already on 8.5 so not directly impacted for 7.x but think we can
> > take it as a good example for 1.x.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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>
> >
> > 2017-06-19 16:14 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-06-19 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> >> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> 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 <
> agumbrecht@tomitribe.com
> >>>>
> >>> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> >>>> 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 <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >>>> :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> >>>> :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> >>>>> jgallimore@tomitribe.com
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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" <
> >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> >>>>>>>>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <
> >>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>> <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <
> >>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>> <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> >>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Roberto Cortez <ra...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Hi folks,
I’m sorry for digging back this old thread.
I think we never ended up making a decision on this, and a year and a half as passed since we discussed this.
So, I would like to bring to the table again the discussion around supporting TomEE 1.x and EOL.
Cheers,
Roberto
> On 30 Jun 2017, at 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As mentionned tomcat 8.0 EOL has been announced, here is the interesting
> part of it:
>
> "
> The Apache Tomcat team announces that support for Apache Tomcat 8.0.x
> will end on 30 June 2018.
>
> This means that after 30 June 2018:
> - releases from the 8.0.x branch are highly unlikely
> - bugs affecting only the 8.0.x branch will not be addressed
> - security vulnerability reports will not be checked against the 8.0.x
> branch
>
> Three months later (i.e. after 30 September 2017)
> - the 8.0.x download links will be removed
> - the latest 8.0.x release will be removed from the mirror system
> - the 8.0.x branch in svn will move from /tomcat/tc8.0.x to
> /tomcat/archive/tc8.0.x
> - the links to the 8.0.x documentation will be removed from
> tomcat.apache.org
> "
>
> We are already on 8.5 so not directly impacted for 7.x but think we can
> take it as a good example for 1.x.
>
>
>
> 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>
>
> 2017-06-19 16:14 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-06-19 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> 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 <agumbrecht@tomitribe.com
>>>>
>>> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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 <rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
>>>>> jgallimore@tomitribe.com
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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" <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
>>>>>>>>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <
>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
As mentionned tomcat 8.0 EOL has been announced, here is the interesting
part of it:
"
The Apache Tomcat team announces that support for Apache Tomcat 8.0.x
will end on 30 June 2018.
This means that after 30 June 2018:
- releases from the 8.0.x branch are highly unlikely
- bugs affecting only the 8.0.x branch will not be addressed
- security vulnerability reports will not be checked against the 8.0.x
branch
Three months later (i.e. after 30 September 2017)
- the 8.0.x download links will be removed
- the latest 8.0.x release will be removed from the mirror system
- the 8.0.x branch in svn will move from /tomcat/tc8.0.x to
/tomcat/archive/tc8.0.x
- the links to the 8.0.x documentation will be removed from
tomcat.apache.org
"
We are already on 8.5 so not directly impacted for 7.x but think we can
take it as a good example for 1.x.
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>
2017-06-19 16:14 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2017-06-19 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
>
>> 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 <agumbrecht@tomitribe.com
>> >
>> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
>> > 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 <rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> >:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
>> >:
>> > > >
>> > > >> 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 <
>> > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
>> > > jgallimore@tomitribe.com
>> > > >> >:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > 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" <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
>> > > >> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
>> > > >> > > :
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <
>> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > > 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
>> > > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
>> > > >> >:
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > > 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 <
>> > > >> > > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > 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" <
>> > > >> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > > 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
>> > > >> > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
>> > > >> > > >:
>> > > >> > > > > >>
>> > > >> > > > > >>> +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 <
>> > > >> > > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> > > >> > > > > >>>> :
>> > > >> > > > > >>>>
>> > > >> > > > > >>>> 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
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2017-06-19 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>
:
> 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 <ag...@tomitribe.com>
> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <rm...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> >:
> > > >
> > > >> 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 <
> > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > jgallimore@tomitribe.com
> > > >> >:
> > > >>
> > > >> > 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" <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > >> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > :
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > 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
> > > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > > >> >:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > 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 <
> > > >> > > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > 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" <
> > > >> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > 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
> > > >> > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > > >> > > >:
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >>> +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 <
> > > >> > > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > >>>> :
> > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>> 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
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thoughts?
Jon
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>
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 <rm...@gmail.com>
> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> > >
> > >> 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 <
> > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jgallimore@tomitribe.com
> > >> >:
> > >>
> > >> > 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" <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > >> > > :
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> > > > 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
> > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > >> >:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > 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 <
> > >> > > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > 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" <
> > >> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > 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
> > >> > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > >> > > >:
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>> +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 <
> > >> > > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > >>>> :
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>> 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
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Andy Gumbrecht <ag...@tomitribe.com>.
-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 <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> >
> >
> > 2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> >
> >> 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 <
> >> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> jgallimore@tomitribe.com
> >> >:
> >>
> >> > 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" <rm...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> >> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> >> > > :
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> > > > 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
> <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> >> >:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > 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 <
> >> > > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 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" <
> >> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > 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
> >> > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> >> > > >:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>> +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 <
> >> > > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >>>> :
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> 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
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
>
>> 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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <jgallimore@tomitribe.com
>> >:
>>
>> > 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" <rm...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
>> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
>> > > :
>> > >
>> > > > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > > 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 <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
>> >:
>> > > >
>> > > > > 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 <
>> > > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 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" <
>> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > 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
>> > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
>> > > >:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> +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 <
>> > > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> 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>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> 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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <jg...@tomitribe.com>:
>
> > 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" <rm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > > :
> > >
> > > > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
> > > > 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 <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > 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 <
> > > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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" <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > > >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> +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 <
> > > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> 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>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
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
LieGrue,strub
On Sunday, 18 June 2017, 18:51, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <jg...@tomitribe.com>:
> 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" <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > :
> >
> > > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
> > > 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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> > >
> > > > 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 <
> > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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" <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > 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
> <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> +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 <
> > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > >>>> :
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 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>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <jg...@tomitribe.com>:
> 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" <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> > :
> >
> > > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
> > > 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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> > >
> > > > 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 <
> > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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" <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > 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
> <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> > >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> +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 <
> > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > > >>>> :
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 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>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jg...@tomitribe.com>.
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.
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.
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?
Jon
On 18 Jun 2017 5:06 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>
> :
>
> > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> >
> > > 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 <
> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > 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" <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >
> > > 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 <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
> >:
> > > >>
> > > >>> +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 <
> > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > > >>>> :
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 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>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>
:
> On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
> 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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
>
> > 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 <
> > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > 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" <rm...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> > >>
> > >>> +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 <
> > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >>>> :
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com> 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.
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?
What documentation for migration are we going to provide?
Do we still intend to fix bugs and/or security issues after that date?
Would we continue to accept patches from the community after that date?
Your plan basically is to just stop, if I have read it correctly. I have
concerns about that, which I have stated.
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.
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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> 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 <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> >
> > 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" <rm...@gmail.com>
> 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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> >>
> >>> +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 <
> >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >>>> :
> >>>>
> >>>> 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>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
@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 ;)).
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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> 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 <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com>:
> >
> > 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" <rm...@gmail.com>
> 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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> >>
> >>> +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 <
> >> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >>>> :
> >>>>
> >>>> 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>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
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 <jo...@gmail.com>:
>
> 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" <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
>>
>>> +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 <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
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" <rm...@gmail.com> 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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
>
> > +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 <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > 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>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>:
> +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 <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > 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>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
+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 <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
> 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>
Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
I’d be -1 for any kind of EOL of 1.7 right now.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Jun 6, 2017, at 8:58 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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>