Alex, You are right, dunno why it does not work. I don't have a lot of time today to dig into.
The first thing you can to do is to create a bookmark titled 'ASF CMS edit' with the following content: javascript:void(location.href='https://cms .apache.org/redirect?uri='+escape(location.href)) Then, you can navigate again to http://tomee.apache.org/tomee-version-policies.html Or any page you wanna update. Finally, just click on the 'ASF CMS Edit' bookmark created in the first step and that should work. The top right blue pen is supposed to do the same. There was a synchronization issue between the online cms editor and our svn repo. It's working now for me. Crossing fingers now. Happy new year JLouis 2012/12/30 Alex The Rocker <[email protected]> > When I click 'No', I'm redirected to this location: > https://cms.apache.org/openejb/wc/browse/anonymous-sFLdJE/trunk/ > > and I don't see where I could edit the page about TomEE versions :( > Am I missing something? > > > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > No stupid question, only stupid answers. > > > > Apache ID = apache committer ID > > You can just say No and enter in an anonymous mode. > > > > As soon as you validate it, we receive a patch to commit for you. > > > > @Romain, no need to follow Tomcat, was just to clarify things in my > opinion > > and check their versioning to inspire ourself. But we are all free to do > > whatever we want. > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > 2012/12/30 Alex The Rocker <[email protected]> > > > > > Okay, now time for a stupid question : I'm asked to enter an Apache ID, > > how > > > can I register one? (the ID which I use for JIRA doesn't work here) > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > That sounds pretty similar to Tomcat. > > > > If we can adapt a bit to make things even clearer I'm all for it. > > > > > > > > Whatever the next version will be, yes we can create a page and push > > our > > > > versioning thoughts and Java EE mapping. > > > > Would you like to start pushing your understanding as you proposed > > > > previously and how you would get them proposed? > > > > > > > > Just created a new page and committed it. > > > > http://openejb.staging.apache.org/tomee-version-policies.html > > > > > > > > You can edit it and push a patch directly on the website using the > top > > > > right blue pen. > > > > You don't need to be a committer. > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > JLouis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/30 Alex The Rocker <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis: > > > > > > > > > > I wasn't very clear, sorry for that, but I think you got the idea > :) > > > > > If I understand well your proposal of TomEE versioning, it would be > > > > x.y.z, > > > > > with x=1 for Java EE 6 ; and y moving when there are "new features" > > and > > > > "z" > > > > > moving for fixes. > > > > > > > > > > Why not, but this is a little bit different from Tomcat's x.y.z : > > > > > - it seems that Tomcat x version is correlated to a Java Servlet & > > JSP > > > > > specification, so TomEE's x meaning a given Java EE version, with > x=1 > > > <=> > > > > > Java EE 6 is consistent. > > > > > - For the middle version number y, I have been so much used to > Tomcat > > > > 6.0.x > > > > > that I wasn't considering features (other than Java EE version) > > changes > > > > > - For the last version number z, your proposal for TomEE (fixes) > > seems > > > to > > > > > be consistent with Tomcat's > > > > > > > > > > So it seems that I need to ask our certification team to adapt a > > little > > > > bit > > > > > our TomEE support policy, with a statement looking like this: our > > > product > > > > > is supported with Apache TomEE+ 1.5.x, x=>1 or with TomEE+ 1.6.z, > > y>=6. > > > > > > > > > > Now I have a request for you Jean-Louis: could your proposal for > > > version > > > > be > > > > > written somewhere in TomEE's internet side, including the major > > version > > > > > mapping to Java EE release, like this: > > > > > TomEE 1.x.y => Java EE 6 > > > > > TomEE 2.x.y => Java EE 7 > > > > > and the meaning of x & y (features & fixes) ? > > > > > > > > > > If you need a JIRA for this, then I can open it. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > > > You are all welcome to share your needs and what you expect (and > > also > > > > to > > > > > > help if you can ;-)). > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, TomEE 1.x.y is only Java EE 6 dedicated. > > > > > > The work on Java EE 7 will start Q2 2013 I guess or a bit after > and > > > it > > > > > > should produce the 2.x.y of TomEE. > > > > > > > > > > > > Java EE 8, dunno for the moment, maybe a TomEE 3.x.y > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Back to 1.x.y, the third digit is usually for maintenance (bugfix > > and > > > > > > improvements). The second one is for new features and significant > > > > > changes. > > > > > > Between 1.0.x and 1.5.0, we had a discussion all together and > > agreed > > > > that > > > > > > there were lot of new feature and improvements (see release notes > > > where > > > > > all > > > > > > should be clearer). We wanted to emphasis that huge work and > > decided > > > to > > > > > > jump in the version. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not proposing to jump again, I just wanted to know what > > community > > > > and > > > > > > users have in mind and like to see in next release to decide what > > > > numbers > > > > > > are better. > > > > > > > > > > > > If 1.5.2 is a new maintenance release and does not contain any > big > > > new > > > > > > feature, I'm all ok to use that numbers. > > > > > > I'm not aware of Tomcat producing a new version since our last > > > release, > > > > > but > > > > > > the 1.5.2 could embedded the new release if available as well as > > > other > > > > > > dependency upgrades. I have in mind at least CXF and maybe > OpenJPA. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it clearer? > > > > > > If I badly interpreted your thoughts, apologize and lemme know. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/30 Alex The Rocker <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a very serious topic for my company: we're releasing a > > > > product > > > > > > > which we document that it is supported with Apache TomEE+ > 1.5.x, > > > > x=>1. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > rationale for allowing our customers to use an higher "fix" > > version > > > > is > > > > > to > > > > > > > benefit from Apache Tomcat security fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When our product was based on Apache Tomcat instead of TomEE we > > had > > > > the > > > > > > > same type of support policy : for example we wrote that we > > > supported > > > > > > Apache > > > > > > > Tomcat 7.0x, x=>23. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very concerned by a TomEE 1.6.0 version which could put an > > end > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > 1.5.x series. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Apache TomEE team to stick to Apache > > > Tomcat > > > > > > > version conventions (too late for the middle number which could > > > have > > > > > > stayed > > > > > > > to '0', so we should be at version 1.0.3 instead of 1.5.1) ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, if a 1.6.0 version is actually planned (for Java EE > 8 > > > > alpha > > > > > > > support, why not), then please keep 1.5.x series actives for a > > > > (long). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That are some painful bugs in 1.5.1. > > > > > > > > They are fixed in the trunk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the question here is: what are the plans for next > releases? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have basically 2 options: > > > > > > > > 1. try to push a new 1.5.2 by February or so > > > > > > > > 2. push a 1.6.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We don't have so much new features for now, so I'm quite > sure, > > we > > > > > will > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > a 1.5.2 out. > > > > > > > > Thoughts are welcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another question is what to put in? > > > > > > > > As said previously, there are number of bugs fixed in trunk. > > > > > > > > Anything else you wanna get in? > > > > > > > > Any work (improvement, bugfixes, dependency updates, etc)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Louis > > > -- Jean-Louis
