Yup for owb release, no need to delay I am fine with it
> On 25 Jun 2017, at 22:24, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Le 25 juin 2017 21:22, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[email protected]> a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Romain
> Because this is a new initiative, it must follow the ASF rules even if
> graduate as a subproject
>
> But imo, this is not a subproject, because it has different aims from owb
> core, owb aim is just implement the specification
>
> Please have a look http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#
> subproject-or-top-level
>
> So my advice is to write an incubator project , sponsored by the owb, and
> graduate as sub or top level project ( my vote will be as tlp)
>
> We can also bring this issue in a board report and getting advice from the
> board
>
>
>
> Maybe we should ask them yes. What do others think?
>
> Dont sure we need to delay next release cause of it but what about pinging
> the board in next report?
>
>
> Regards
>
> Gurkan
>
>> On 25 Jun 2017, at 22:08, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 25 juin 2017 21:03, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[email protected]> a écrit
> :
>>
>> Hi Romain
>>
>> Because it is a very different mind , it just uses the owb but may also
> use other cdi implementation in the future
>>
>>
>> No no. You missed a central point : owb+cxf+tomcat highly integrated vs a
> portable stack like hammock is. Here we just want to integrate our
> preferred stack.
>>
>>
>> Also, it may implement the microprofile speficiation
>>
>>
>> It could but still compat with owb afaik.
>>
>>
>> Also it has its own project page, codebase, release cycle, issues etc. It
> just depends on owb as library
>>
>> True, it is a subproject
>>
>>
>>
>> So for the future perpective, it is now to route for such action at the
> beginning, and so it will much more getting attraction from the asf and
> other communities
>>
>> We used a subproject cause was proven being wrong on this hypothesis we
> did for some other incubator projects
>>
>>
>>
>> I will be gald to help on such effort
>>
>> Why not helping here?
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Gurkan
>>
>>> On 25 Jun 2017, at 21:56, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Hi Gurkan
>>>
>>> What is the rational behind such a reasonning since core of meecrowave
> is owb and that we agreed to import?
>>>
>>> Side note: tomee doesnt fit since we dont impl specs bit just build a
> server centered around owb to avoid tomcat integration issues we often see
> on the list.
>>>
>>> Le 25 juin 2017 20:44, "Gurkan Erdogdu" <[email protected]>
> a écrit :
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> As I said earlier , Meecrowave project needs to be seperated from owb,
> it has own project page, codebase, issues, release cycle etc. There are two
> options in here either Tomee subproject or new in incubator project. My
> binding vote will be -1 for such release otherwise. I know that incubator
> projects needs much more admin work but from my opinion this is the way of
> introducing such new project in ASF
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Gurkan
>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Jun 2017, at 20:38, Mark Struberg <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks!
>>>>>
>>>>> We are finished with implementing all CDI-2.0 features and now
> successfully pass the standalone TCK!
>>>>> A recent owb-2.0.0-SNAPSHOT is deployed to the Apache Snapshots
> repository [1].
>>>>> This get's deployed via Jenkins each night.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great if you could try it out and give us some feedback!
>>>>> We gonna release it somewhen next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> txs and LieGrue,
>>>>> strub
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/
>>>>
>>
