Hello,

So finally, how far / close are we from a TomEE 10.1.0 release with MP 6.1 ?
Given the couple of CVEs fixes since 10.0.1, would'nt it be a good
time for an update, in addition to MP 6.1?

Thanks,
Alex

Le lun. 5 mai 2025 à 17:10, Alex The Rocker <alex.m3...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Okay so +1 for a 10.1.0 with MP 6.1
>
> Le lun. 5 mai 2025 à 10:07, Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > afaik MP6.1 is backward compatible to MP 6.0.
> >
> > For this reason, I wouldn't open a maintainance branch for 10.0.x :-)
> >
> > So from a theoretical point of view: It would just indicate a change of the 
> > MP level.
> >
> > Gruß
> > Richard
> >
> > On 2025/05/05 07:57:30 Alex The Rocker wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > What would be the impact of raising the minor version from 10.0.x to 
> > > 10.1.x ?
> > > Would there still be updated to 10.0.x branch?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > Le ven. 25 avr. 2025 à 13:18, Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Good news: Metrics 5.1 is now green too, i.e. we are on MP 6.1 now.
> > > >
> > > > Shall we raise the TomEE version to 10.1.0-SNAPSHOT ?
> > > >
> > > > Gruß
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Am 24.04.2025 um 12:10 schrieb Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I did some MP 6.1 work. The current status looks as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Open Telementry 1.1 ->  TCK ok
> > > > > - Config 3.1. -> TCK ok
> > > > >
> > > > > I also upgraded Metrics 5.1 on this branch: 
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/tomee/tree/metrics-5.1
> > > > >
> > > > > There are some failures as commented here: 
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/metrics-5.1/tck/microprofile-tck/metrics/pom.xml#L58
> > > > >
> > > > > They all rely on a custom configuration and I am quite sure, that 
> > > > > these custom config isn’t picked up - didn’t have time to deeply 
> > > > > debug it though.
> > > > > If anyone has some spare cycles, give it a try :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Gruß
> > > > > Richard
> > > >
> > >

Reply via email to