+1 Thanks, Caty
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:27 AM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > > > > On 13 Apr 2019, at 12:59, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 11:39 AM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> > wrote: > >> > >> Since it’s a vote I think I am -1 to support both Tomcat 8.x and 9.x at > the same level (I could change that to a -0 if everyone else agrees). > >> > >> For 2 reasons: > >> * I feel we’re don’t have enough agent power to support so many configs > - we already have too many IMO, and each new config increases the test time > exponentially. > >> * I’d really like that we continue having a single version for each > infra server in our docker-latest job. > >> > >> So I’m proposing one of the following 2 options: > >> > >> Option 1: Tomcat 8.x stays the supported version > >> ======= > >> > >> * Continue delivering XWiki on Tomcat 8.x by default. For ex the Docker > image continue to be on Tomcat 8.x, see the tags on > https://hub.docker.com/_/xwiki?tab=description > >> * Offer a preview for Tomcat 9.x but don’t consider it as being > officially supported. This means mentioning the “preview” in the various > docs. > >> * On the test side, this means adding it to docker-unsupported > >> > >> Option 2: Tomcat 9.x becomes the latest supported version > >> ======= > >> > >> * Consider that Tomcat 9.x is now the latest version of Tomcat, i.e. > make it go in the docker-latest build (ie all tests execute on it). > Executed daily. > >> * Consider that Tomcat 8.x is now an older version of Tomcat (but still > supported) and move all Tomcat 8.x tests to docker-all (ie only smoke tests > on it). Executed weekly. > >> * Upgrade the official Docker image to use Tomcat 9.x. More generally > upgrade all distributions to use Tomcat 9.x. Note that we support only 1 > version of Tomcat in the Docker images we distribute. > >> > >> The only question I’m asking is whether Tomcat 9.x is stable enough for > using it in production vs Tomcat 8.x (8.5.x to be precise). Note that > Tomcat 8.5.x contains backports from Tomcat 9.x AFAIK and the main > difference is just the supported Servlet spec (AFAICS). > >> > >> So if we wish to make a move, I’d prefer option 2 but I don’t know if I > know enough about Tomcat 8.5.x vs Tomcat 9.x in production to make an > educated decision. I’d be curious to know if users would be ok to run > Tomcat 9.x in production. Now we would still support 8.5.x so users who > want to stay on Tomcat 8.5.x can. > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > >> PS: I thought I saw a jira issue being closed on this topic, did I > dream it or did you anticipate the vote results? ;) > > > > Providing a Debian package which work with Tomcat 9 does not make it > > officially supported as you said. > > For me it kind of does because I don’t see how we would officially provide > a package and not test it (and if we test it then it’s officially > supported). > > Unless we explicitly mark is as experimental so that users know that it’s > not supported when they use it. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > >> > >>> On 12 Apr 2019, at 17:53, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 5:42 PM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 12 Apr 2019, at 17:35, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 5:07 PM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 12 Apr 2019, at 17:00, Thomas Mortagne < > thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi devs, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> tomcat9 package is now available in Debian repositories so I would > >>>>>>> like to start providing xwiki-tomcat9-* Debian packages of XWiki. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nothing complex so far but it if we provide an official tomcat 9 > >>>>>>> oriented package it would also make more sense to add Tomcat 9 in > >>>>>>> > https://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/SupportStrategy/ServletContainerSupportStrategy/ > >>>>>>> (only Tomcat 8 right now). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Another argument is that it's the current recommended stable > version > >>>>>>> from Tomcat point of view so people will use it more and more. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> WDYT ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In principle it’s good but it means doing a lot more tests to > officially support it and we’re already doing a lot. So I’m not very > inclined to add new config tests. It adds a lot of hours to the build. I’d > prefer that we keep officially supporting only a single version if we can. > Same as for jetty for ex. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> BTW could you provide the URLs for the various debian repos > (oldstable, stable, unstable) so that we can check the precise Tomcat > versions? > >>>>> > >>>>> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=tomcat9 so 9.0.16. It's > >>>>> available in the stable branch trough backport repository (stable > >>>>> branch never get new major version directly). > >>>> > >>>> So it seems there’s only an “unstable” version FTM. I would wait till > there’s a “stable” version at least. We could add it to our “unsupported” > docker tests that execute once a month though. WDYT? > >>> > >>> No as I said there is a stable package, you just have to enable stable > >>> backports. There is also a testing version. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> What’s your need for adding support for it now, since debian doesn’t > have a stable support for it yet? > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> BTW I also noticed that https://packages.debian.org/sid/tomcat8 > doesn’t exist anymore. It’s been removed? This link is in our doc at > https://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/SupportStrategy/ServletContainerSupportStrategy/ > >>>>> > >>>>> This is the URL for sid only which is the unstable branch. Not really > >>>>> sure if it's like this on purpose or if it's a mistake but it will > >>>>> continue to be available for a very long time in the stable branch > for > >>>>> sure anyway. On Tomcat side there is no date announced for 8.5.x end > >>>>> of life. > >>>> > >>>> This link used to work so it’s been removed. Not sure what we should > do. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> -Vincent > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> -Vincent > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here is my +1 > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Thomas Mortagne > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Thomas Mortagne > >> > > > > > > -- > > Thomas Mortagne > >
