Same view here. Fine with me to apply patches (security for instance) but no active development -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:41 PM Jonathan Gallimore < [email protected]> wrote: > My view is still the same. I'm still willing to patch and release from > 1.7.x. At the stage, I don't think we could consider getting it working > with Java 11, and I wouldn't actively develop this branch, but I'd be > willing to apply fixes and patches to it where possible. > > Jon > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Roberto Cortez <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > I’m sorry for digging back this old thread. > > > > I think we never ended up making a decision on this, and a year and a > half > > as passed since we discussed this. > > > > So, I would like to bring to the table again the discussion around > > supporting TomEE 1.x and EOL. > > > > Cheers, > > Roberto > > > > > On 30 Jun 2017, at 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > As mentionned tomcat 8.0 EOL has been announced, here is the > interesting > > > part of it: > > > > > > " > > > The Apache Tomcat team announces that support for Apache Tomcat 8.0.x > > > will end on 30 June 2018. > > > > > > This means that after 30 June 2018: > > > - releases from the 8.0.x branch are highly unlikely > > > - bugs affecting only the 8.0.x branch will not be addressed > > > - security vulnerability reports will not be checked against the 8.0.x > > > branch > > > > > > Three months later (i.e. after 30 September 2017) > > > - the 8.0.x download links will be removed > > > - the latest 8.0.x release will be removed from the mirror system > > > - the 8.0.x branch in svn will move from /tomcat/tc8.0.x to > > > /tomcat/archive/tc8.0.x > > > - the links to the 8.0.x documentation will be removed from > > > tomcat.apache.org > > > " > > > > > > We are already on 8.5 so not directly impacted for 7.x but think we can > > > take it as a good example for 1.x. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > 2017-06-19 16:14 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> 2017-06-19 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore < > > >> [email protected]>: > > >> > > >>> Firstly, I note the page Romain started - thank you for listening to > my > > >>> feedback. I'd be happy to test instructions and contribute to that > > page. I > > >>> suspect some DBCP(2) settings are different so we should call those > > out. > > >>> I'll also try and help build it out into a step by step guide. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Hmm, database pool can need there own thread but current doc basically > > >> says "read the pool doc" cause each time we copied it, we ended up > > messing > > >> more than solving in term of user experience so I'm not sure we should > > do > > >> this exercise. That said +1 to add a point saying it should be > > validated. > > >> Tomcat pool being the default we shouldn't be too much affected in > > "prod". > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Secondly, I have been thinking about the EOL. I personally really > > dislike > > >>> the term 'End of life' for an Open Source project / branch. The > branch > > >>> will > > >>> ultimately live on while there are committers / contributors whether > > >>> individual or organizations that are prepared to provide patches. The > > >>> OpenEJB Eclipse Plugin could be thought of as "End Of Life", but if > > >>> someone > > >>> showed up on the mailing list wanting to use it with the latest > > version of > > >>> Eclipse, and it didn't work (which I expect is the case), or found a > > bug, > > >>> truthfully, I would be simply delighted to update it - so in that > > regard > > >>> it > > >>> isn't EOL. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Agree but think not using EOL would be misleading. What we want is to: > > >> > > >> 1. show 1.x is not more active > > >> 2. 1.x is no more maintained (and once again this is not linked to our > > >> only will in term of OS ecosystem) > > >> 3. you should migrate to 7 > > >> > > >> I'm fine detailling it in the announce but not sure if using a more > > >> accurate term (EOS - end of support ?) wouldn't be more misleading :s > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Similarly, if someone / an organization wanted to contribute and > > maintain > > >>> 1.7.x, then there shouldn't really be any blocker to them doing so, > and > > >>> therefore it also wouldn't be EOL. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Well the OS side is a blocker. This means 1.x needs to live with a > tons > > of > > >> fork which should be ack by tomee project before being an option. > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> I do, however, appreciate that there is a desire for people to > migrate > > to > > >>> the latest version, as there is more activity there in terms of later > > >>> specs > > >>> and new functionality, and I also appreciate the issue where > > dependencies > > >>> 1.7.x uses may not be updated any more. > > >>> > > >>> I'd like to make the suggestion that we give an honest statement > about > > >>> each > > >>> version available, in order to help facilitate decision making. As to > > what > > >>> "honest statement" means... well I think we'd need to discuss and > agree > > >>> the > > >>> specific statements. Off the top of my head, it could be something > > like: > > >>> > > >>> Pre-1.7.x: No longer being updated within the community. > > >>> 1.7.x: Stable, certified, supports Java EE 6 Web Profile. Receives > > >>> security > > >>> fixes, occasional feature updates and backports, and bug fixes. Last > > >>> commit: yyyy-MM-dd, last release: yyyy-MM-dd. N.B. some dependencies > > (e.g. > > >>> <list here>) no longer receive updates. Consider upgrading to 7.0, > see > > the > > >>> migration guide here: http://tomee.apache.org/........ > > >>> 7.x: Stable, GA, supports Java EE 7 Web Profile. Actively developed, > > >>> receives security fixes, numerous feature updates and bug fixes. Last > > >>> commit: yyyy-MM-dd, last release: yyyy-MM-dd > > >>> 8.x: In progress, not yet GA, supports Java EE 8 Web Profile. > Consider > > >>> this > > >>> to be ahead of "bleeding edge". Last commit: yyyy-MM-dd, last > release: > > >>> yyyy-MM-dd > > >>> > > >>> > > >> Hmm, this looks really awesome and close to what we should go with > IMHO > > >> but experience shows it is not as reliable as it is written to. Maybe > we > > >> should rephrase it more in a way saying "maintained as best effort > > allows > > >> and when some companies want, will be EOL [next year]" - "EOL" and > "next > > >> year" to replace by this thread outcome indeed. > > >> > > >> What I want to avoid here is the understanding 1.7 will get backports > or > > >> security fixes systematically which never have been the case - not > > blaming > > >> since I'm a lot responsible of it but just trying to be realistic with > > our > > >> resources. > > >> > > >> > > >>> Thoughts? > > >>> > > >>> Jon > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Andy Gumbrecht < > > [email protected] > > >>>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> -1 > > >>>> > > >>>> I would welcome an EOL announcement at the end of the year (with a > > years > > >>>> notice), but not right now. That's too much pressure. So to make > that > > >>>> clear, I would announce EOL on the 1st Jan.18 and EOL is then 1st > Jan > > >>> 2019 > > >>>> - That gives everyone plenty of time to create detailed > documentation > > on > > >>>> the site that targets everyone, and then plenty of time to migrate. > > >>>> > > >>>> We could make a pre-EOL announcement that details the above plan. An > > >>>> announcement of the planned announcement so to say - That would > enable > > >>>> contribution and discussion regarding the EOL effort by the > community > > >>>> rather than being a snap decision. > > >>>> > > >>>> Andy. > > >>>> > > >>>> On 18 June 2017 at 20:36, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> http://tomee.apache.org/developer/migration/tomee-1-to-7.html > > >>> intends to > > >>>>> solve that issue, we can add any point we hit/encounter > > >>>>> > > >>>>> what else would be a blocker to make 1 EOL in June 2018? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 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 20:17 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected] > > >>>> : > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 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> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Andy Gumbrecht > > >>>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
