I also don't get why there is resistance to backport if we can and if a contriibutor/committer is wiling to. We have most of our users not using TomEE because it's not finished or certified.
They would certainely be happy to being able to use MP on a stable TomEE version. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:33 AM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good morning :) > > > On Aug 8, 2018, at 10:53 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <cgerdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> We can definitely vote, but would be great if we can way a day or two to > >> discuss what we'd be voting and what our status is and how to best > address > >> our concerns. > >> > > +1 > > I maybe jumped the gun. I'm happy to trash the vote I put up if we feel > that's best. Or we let it continue and consider it informational and > non-binding. > > >> We all universally agree we want MP in TomEE 8 and are actively working > on > >> it > >> > > I am not sure there is an active MP work in TomEE > > It's not roaring active, but config and jwt are there and passing in TomEE > 8 and 7.1. Roberto has done a good chunk of that integration work, > obviously Jean-Louis a large part of the JWT support, Jon has indicated in > the past a willingness to spin the release. > > > My understanding of the concern is that we end up ignoring TomEE 8, which > >> is a concern I would share. > >> > > I did not understand what you mean by ignoring TomEE 8 .Can you please a > > bit elaborate? Who ignore? > > This is me attempting to understand the objection to a TomEE 7.1 and > apparently doing a bad job of it :) > > I got the impression the concern was that energy would be shifted away > from TomEE 8 to a TomEE 7.1, i.e. TomEE 8 would suffer and be ignored as a > result. If that's not the case, I suspect I need someone who is concerned > about a 7.1 to say more specifically the concern is. > > > Perhaps the most effective vote would be to vote to require those who do > >> work on a TomEE 7.1 to also submit the same PR to TomEE 8. If a PR comes > >> into TomEE 7.1 only and that work is needed in TomEE 8, but there isn't > a > >> PR, we reject it. > >> > > -1. Different people can work on TomEE 7.1 and TomEE 8. We need to > > differentiate TomEE 7.1 from TomEE 8. TomEE 7.1 is just in there to only > > include MP1. We don't want to wait TomEE 7.1 for TomEE 8. > > I'm ok with us not being that strict. I only proposed it as a compromise > to address concerns. I have a growing awareness I haven't clearly > understood the concern well enough to address it. > > I'll shut my mouth for a bit and re-open my ears, hopefully something good > will jump in. :) > > > -David > >
