Re: 7.0.0 release vote

> On May 5, 2016, at 7:26 AM, ross.cohen wrote: >> >> Examples are not spec compliant too or abuse of vendor behavior. Also a >> serious amount of users just need what is in tomee now. I tend to prefer >> to >> move forward with active people than waiting passive ones

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Romain Manni-Bucau wrote > Le 4 mai 2016 23:28, "ross.cohen" > ross.cohen.rc@ > a écrit : >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau wrote >> > 2016-05-04 14:54 GMT+02:00 ross.cohen >> >> > ross.cohen.rc@ >> >> > : >> > >> >> David Blevins-2 wrote >> >> >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> >

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Le 4 mai 2016 23:28, "ross.cohen" a écrit : > > Romain Manni-Bucau wrote > > 2016-05-04 14:54 GMT+02:00 ross.cohen > > > ross.cohen.rc@ > > > : > > > >> David Blevins-2 wrote > >> >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> > >> That is also my

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Romain Manni-Bucau wrote > 2016-05-04 14:54 GMT+02:00 ross.cohen > ross.cohen.rc@ > : > >> David Blevins-2 wrote >> >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> That is also my recollection of the question. >> >> But whether or not it was the case, it is certainly the case that

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

2016-05-04 14:54 GMT+02:00 ross.cohen : > David Blevins-2 wrote > >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > > rmannibucau@ > > > wrote: > >> > >> Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7. > > > > My memory of that vote was we

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

David Blevins-2 wrote >> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > rmannibucau@ > wrote: >> >> Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7. > > My memory of that vote was we intentionally aligned the TomEE version > number specifically to align to the Java EE version

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

+1 I would prefer a tons of -1 from users than committers (actually commiters know how to sort it out so we shouldnt care much of them for such things ;)). Now factually vote passed, no new input made the overall debate face changed so still think we can move forward. I perfectly get - more than

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Thanks for the feedback. We encourage everyone to vote, as a user, as a contributor, as a contributor or as anyone willing to help the project. User perspective is also important for the project. Jean-Louis -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Le 29 avr. 2016 00:49, "ross.cohen" ross.cohen.rc@ a écrit : > Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to different > people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0 release > to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release, which it >

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

@David: we needed a version >= 5 (think I voted for 5) just to not break auto-tools like maven version comparison etc. Then I guess users desired ee=tomee but when you pointed out this confusion to me I made it clear in a thread. @all: now we had milestones 7.x we need for the same reason a 7.0.0

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Hi all, from a Customers or User perspective i totally agree with using version 2.x and wait with 7.x for the EE compliance. Thats pretty straight forward David. That would not confusing me. Eduard Matej schrieb am Di., 3. Mai 2016 um 07:08: > Hi all. Not developer. But I

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Hi all. Not developer. But I also think jumping to 7.x for no reason will only confuse everyone. If ee7 will not be provided like 98 - 99 % compliant. Then it would really be better to maybe just go 2.x route. I think already now people that choose Tomee, dont really care about being 100%

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

> On May 2, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Fully agree that's why it has been stated tomee 7 != javaee 7. My memory of that vote was we intentionally aligned the TomEE version number specifically to align to the Java EE version number and further that

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

on their website. validator is asl > > AFAIK cause of JCP but orm is not. Did you find another source? > > > > > > > Andy. > > > > > > On 2 May 2016 at 13:48, Roberto Cortez <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > >

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

d you find another source? > > > > > > > Andy. > > > > > > On 2 May 2016 at 13:48, Roberto Cortez <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Some JAX-RS tests are using JPA 2.1 features which is not support

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

g JPA 2.1 features which is not supported yet. > > From: John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > To: dev@tomee.apache.org > > Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:11 PM > > Subject: Re: 7.0.0 release vote > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Man

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

. Andy. On 2 May 2016 at 13:48, Roberto Cortez <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Some JAX-RS tests are using JPA 2.1 features which is not supported yet. > From: John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > To: dev@tomee.apache.org > Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:11

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Some JAX-RS tests are using JPA 2.1 features which is not supported yet. From: John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> To: dev@tomee.apache.org Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:11 PM Subject: Re: 7.0.0 release vote On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Fixed several in my fork - guess it has been merged but there was too much issues to fix them all alone. The build output shows what it is generally - excepted when the tests are not passing at all like angular example was. Le 2 mai 2016 13:11, "John D. Ament" a écrit : >

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more tests > AFAIK. Could you elaborate on that a little? What is not portable? If you want to raise issues in our ticket system please feel free:

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Not portable test, jpa on not jpa tests etc. We pass really more tests AFAIK. Le 2 mai 2016 05:48, "David Blevins" a écrit : > No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7 samples checkup > :) > > It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

No worries on the many posts. Thank you for the Java EE 7 samples checkup :) It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what is preventing us from passing those tests? -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On May 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, John

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Sorry for so many posts :-) TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite. John On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament wrote: > I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the tests, > you can see the output in this gist: >

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the tests, you can see the output in this gist: https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536 TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests. John On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament wrote:

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the TomEE profile: https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690 John On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins wrote: > In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java EE 7 samples will currently run successfully? - https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Apr 28,

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Le 29 avr. 2016 00:49, "ross.cohen" a écrit : > > Actually, it looks like a 7.0 release means different things to different > people. Romain, you took everyone's approval of the idea of a 7.0.0 release > to be an approval of your particular version of a 7.0.0 release,