+1 for skipping 2.8 now and releasing 3.0 end of this year.
-------------
Freeman(Yue) Fang

Red Hat, Inc. 
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/
Twitter: freemanfang
Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com
http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042
weibo: @Freeman小屋

On 2013-3-26, at 上午2:19, Daniel Kulp wrote:

> 
> We're getting close to April which normally would be the next release (2.8).  
>  However, looking things over, I'm not sure it makes sense at this time.    
> Looking at trunk, the only major change (which is admittedly a big one), is 
> updating the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff from m10  to the RC level.   However, it's not 
> complete yet.   Almost everything else has been back ported to 2.7.x.   The 
> other major chunk of work that is happening is on the wss4j2 branch, but that 
> isn't ready for for release yet either.   (and has some backwards compat 
> issues to resolve if it would go on a 2.x line)
> 
> According to the agreements Apache has with Oracle, we really cannot 
> "release" code that doesn't pass the TCK (which the 2.0 works would not).   
> Technically, we should not have released 2.7.0 as a release.  We can release 
> things like "tech previews" or "beta" or similar, but not a full release.   
> Since we are working on trying to renew the agreements, Oracle is paying 
> attention to us pretty closely right now.
> 
> So, what am I getting at?   In order to release 2.8 in a few weeks, we'd 
> either need to back out all the JAX-RS 2.0 stuff to 1.1 level OR everyone 
> jump in full force and get it to pass the TCK.   I really don't see either 
> happening.   Backing out to 1.1 would be silly and the 2.0 TCK stuff is a ton 
> of work.   Thus, my suggestion would be to skip a big release this April and 
> concentrate on bigger things for our Oct/Nov release.  Possibly make that a 
> CXF 3.0 release instead of 2.8 where we can clean up some stuff, break a few 
> things (like change the couple API's that currently force WSDL4J on JAX-RS 
> users), etc…    We can incorporate the WSS4J2 changes as part of this as 
> well.    If we go this route, we could likely start a series of "beta" 
> releases or similar in June or so to get people looking at it and testing 
> with it.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Kulp
> dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> 

Reply via email to