@David: we needed a version >= 5 (think I voted for 5) just to not break auto-tools like maven version comparison etc. Then I guess users desired ee=tomee but when you pointed out this confusion to me I made it clear in a thread. @all: now we had milestones 7.x we need for the same reason a 7.0.0 or a > 7.x so 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are no more options.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2016-05-03 7:53 GMT+02:00 Eduard Ketler <eduardket...@gmail.com>: > Hi all, from a Customers or User perspective i totally agree with using > version 2.x and wait with 7.x for the EE compliance. Thats pretty straight > forward David. That would not confusing me. > > Eduard > > Matej <gma...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 3. Mai 2016 um 07:08: > > > Hi all. Not developer. But I also think jumping to 7.x for no reason will > > only confuse everyone. If ee7 will not be provided like 98 - 99 % > > compliant. Then it would really be better to maybe just go 2.x route. I > > think already now people that choose Tomee, dont really care about being > > 100% compliant. But still would be nice to not confuse people. Br matej > > 3. maj 2016 05.43 je oseba "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> > > napisala: > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7. > > > > > > My memory of that vote was we intentionally aligned the TomEE version > > > number specifically to align to the Java EE version number and further > > that > > > it would not be changed even if major change in the server occurred, > > > stating “7.1” and “7.2” would be clear enough to communicate breaking > > > upgrades. > > > > > > I voted -1 on that one, but the above was my understanding of what was > > > decided. > > > > > > I’d be glad to hear it is not, but I would question why we didn’t just > > > stick with 2.x if we weren’t intending to communicate “this implements > > Java > > > EE 7”. > > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > >
