2016-05-04 14:54 GMT+02:00 ross.cohen <ross.cohen...@gmail.com>: > David Blevins-2 wrote > >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > rmannibucau@ > > > > 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”. > > That is also my recollection of the question. > > But whether or not it was the case, it is certainly the case that any user > downloading Tomee 7.x will do so under the impression that it is JEE 7 > compliant. This is reason enough to either wait, or continue under the > current numbering scheme. > > > Well both lead to the same: tomee is not adapted. Question is then: when do we stop waiting for something likely not coming?
> > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/7-0-0-release-vote-tp4678284p4678347.html > Sent from the TomEE Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
