Thanks for the feedback. I think at least some sort of migration guide is needed as some settings have changed. It would be nice for people to find out the easy way. Happy to discuss in another thread, but we should agree when this will appear.
I also think some visibility on what the EOL statement will actually say (I guess it would be a paragraph or two) would help community discussion. I suspect you won't agree, but I think an EOL is a major announcement. A reminder is good if the thread has gone quiet, but I think lazy concensus is less good, unless several reminders have been sent. You have stated a deadline of today, a Sunday - I think some folks may miss that and be too late. I think mid week would be better to reduce the scope of "missing it". If we got to mid week, and had a couple more reminders, the lazy concensus view would seem more reasonable. Wouldn't you prefer to make the EOL statement with a few more +1's? Jon On 18 Jun 2017 5:06 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> wrote: > 2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore < > [email protected]> > : > > > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > @Jon: please propose a policy then (same as rejecting a release, "no" is > > valid only if an alternative is proposed or a string blocker is found > ;)). > > > > > > I feel I stated my concerns pretty clearly. I didn't just reply -1 and > walk > > away, which is what your comment above is suggesting I did. > > > > Ok then understand it as i dont read it as an exit path for the project. > > > > > > But, allow me to rephrase anyway - beyond a "drop dead" date, what > exactly > > is your policy? > > > > How many releases do you see in that time? > > > > As much as needed - up to request. Concretely if no user asks for it no > release, if users ask each month then ~12 (pby more ~10 realisticly), not > sure we would do more but sounds way more than enough. It is in > maintainance anyway so "when needed". > > > > > > What documentation for migration are we going to provide? > > > > Any doc needed but have to admit no doc should be needed. This is quite > parallel to this track so if you see any lack please open a thread and > we'll solve it. > > > > > > Do we still intend to fix bugs and/or security issues after that date? > > > > No, EOL is exactly that: this soft is no more part of active code after the > date. > > Side note: already the case since few years actually if you check our jira > :(. > > > > > > Would we continue to accept patches from the community after that date? > > > > In best effort mode so no engagement but i dont see why we wouldnt. Maybe > something unclear: source will not be modified, moved, put read only > etc...just releases and maintainance is no more expectable from tomee > project itself. > > > > > > Your plan basically is to just stop, if I have read it correctly. I have > > concerns about that, which I have stated. > > > > I understand but it was to stop *next year* and we need a plan anyway. 1.7 > has several important issues due to the non maintainance it gets since > 2 > years. > > > > > > My proposal is simple; answer the questions and concerns about your > > proposal and discuss it fully within the community rather than announce > > something on the website with a single +1. I don't think that is > > unreasonable. > > > > Was not the idea, as stated in the topic it was a discussion but no > activity in > 10 days requires to take an action, either ack it by default > or .... well I don't see any alternative to take the active feedback. Happy > you catch up it now Jon and let's discuss based on previous points - as > this thread was intended for. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > Realisticly 1.7 is no more maintained (the cxf coming exceptional release > > doesn't help since all the stack is outdated now and coming to EOL and > > reactivity is too long - we have > 100 bugs we don't backport but affect > > 1.7). > > The upgrade path is really a noop on our side thanks to javaee policy. If > > you are thinking about something in particular happy to add it on the > site. > > > > EOL doesn't mean we don't release, we can literally do 120 releases of > > 1.7.x if we ack the proposed EOL. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > > rmannibucau> > > | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > > 2017-06-18 15:43 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > > > > > So probably one more 1.7.x release and then let it fade out? > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 18.06.2017 um 13:55 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore < > > > [email protected]>: > > > > > > > > I object. There are plenty of folks still using 1.7.x, and we've > ported > > > > over various fixes from master without too much trouble. > > > > > > > > My concern is that those on 1.7.x might be concerned to see it EOL'd. > > I'd > > > > like to see the upgrade path documented and a policy on fixes applied > > to > > > > 1.7.x documented and discussed before an EOL announcement. > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > On 18 Jun 2017 10:51 am, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> if noone objects before tomorrow i'll update the site with that > policy > > > >> then. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > >> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > > >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > > > >> rmannibucau> | > > > >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > > > >> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > >> > > > >> 2017-06-17 21:55 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected] > >: > > > >> > > > >>> +1. > > > >>> > > > >>> 1.x has quite a few design shortcomings and 7.0.x is a backward > > > >> compatible > > > >>> drop in replacement. > > > >>> And 8.x is just around the corner as well... > > > >>> > > > >>> LieGrue, > > > >>> strub > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Am 06.06.2017 um 17:58 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > >> [email protected] > > > >>>> : > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Hi guys, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> it is harder and harder to maintain 1.x branch since almost no > > library > > > >> is > > > >>>> maintained. Request is also decreasing for that version. Tomcat > will > > > >> also > > > >>>> EOL tomcat 8 next year (1.x is on tomcat 7 which still dont have > an > > > >>>> official EOL I think but never good to rely on an outdated > version, > > > >>> Tomcat > > > >>>> 7 is N-3 now). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Therefore do we want to plan an EOL for 1.7 that we don't develop > > > >> anymore > > > >>>> anyway? What about june next year? Should let people more than > > enough > > > >>> time > > > >>>> to migrate to TomEE 7. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> wdyt? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > >>>> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > > >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > > > >>> rmannibucau> | > > > >>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE > Factory > > > >>>> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
