2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>:
> regarding migration. > There are 3 different main use cases afaict. > 1.) TomEE standalone server, quite like Tomcat. Using 7.x instead 1.7.x > should be a no-brainer without any need to change something within your > application > > 2.) tomee-maven-plugin: change the groupId from org.apache.openejb to > org.apache.tomee. Done > > 3.) openejb-core for unit tests. This gets a bit trickier as the various > spec APIs from EE7 (tomee) and EE6 (your application) might clash. This can > be solved with an exclude setting in the maven-surefire-plugin > Hmm, just means we upgrade API or you think to something else? I'll start a page > LieGrue,strub > > > On Sunday, 18 June 2017, 18:51, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore <[email protected]>: > > > 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. > > > > Which settings are you thinking about? > > > > > > 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. > > > > No more expectation from the core community (releases etc). So evolutions > as best effort (no guarantee). > > > > > > 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? > > > > Sure, now i used past releases as prevision of this topic activity > plannification and even with 5 reminders i wouldnt have got more so > preferring to move forward now. However as said I'm happy to discuss each > points and delay what was just a proposal. > > > > > > 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> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
