Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

On 11/02/2020 14:15, Mark Thomas wrote: > Given all of the above, I propose to do the following: > > - Cancel the 10.0.0.0-M1 release vote > - Give this thread until 10.00 UTC 13-Feb-2020 (just over 72 hours from > when it started) to collect additional views > - Assuming (and it is a big

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:55 PM Christopher Schultz < ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Konstantin, > > On 2/12/20 11:25 AM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > > For me aligning Tomcat version and Jakarta EE is not a practical > > goal. It did

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Konstantin, On 2/12/20 11:25 AM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > For me aligning Tomcat version and Jakarta EE is not a practical > goal. It did not happen before. The contemporary Tomcat and Java EE versions have never been this close before. > It

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

Hi! пн, 10 февр. 2020 г. в 12:47, Mark Thomas : > > [...] > > I have tried to express the various options I have seen proposed in a > similar way so we can compare them. If I have missed one or you think of > a different one then please post it. > > Option A: [...] Option D: 1. If we are going

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

Thanks to everyone that has expressed an opinion so far. If you have a view and you wish to express it, now is the time to do so. I've read through all the responses to date and my reading of those responses is: - A has strong support but also one strongly against - B has low support and several

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Coty, On 2/10/20 8:37 AM, Coty Sutherland wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:48 AM Mark Thomas > wrote: > > Hi, > > I thought it would be useful to re-open the discussion on this. If > there is a better plan that the one

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:48 AM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi, > > I thought it would be useful to re-open the discussion on this. If there > is a better plan that the one we currently have I'd like to try and find > it. > > I'm happy to hold off on the current 10.0.0.0-M1 release for a few days > to

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 2:34 PM Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 1:08 PM Martin Grigorov > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 1:56 PM Rémy Maucherat wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:05 PM Martin Grigorov >>> wrote: >>> Hi, On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 1:08 PM Martin Grigorov wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 1:56 PM Rémy Maucherat wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:05 PM Martin Grigorov >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 11:47 AM Mark Thomas wrote: >>> Hi, I thought it would

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 1:56 PM Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:05 PM Martin Grigorov > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 11:47 AM Mark Thomas wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I thought it would be useful to re-open the discussion on this. If there >>> is a better plan

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:05 PM Martin Grigorov wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 11:47 AM Mark Thomas wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I thought it would be useful to re-open the discussion on this. If there >> is a better plan that the one we currently have I'd like to try and find >> it. >> >>

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

Hi, On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 11:47 AM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi, > > I thought it would be useful to re-open the discussion on this. If there > is a better plan that the one we currently have I'd like to try and find > it. > > I'm happy to hold off on the current 10.0.0.0-M1 release for a few days

Re: Numbering schemes for future releases

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:47 AM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi, > > I thought it would be useful to re-open the discussion on this. If there > is a better plan that the one we currently have I'd like to try and find > it. > > I'm happy to hold off on the current 10.0.0.0-M1 release for a few days > to