On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:48 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> 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 give us time look for a better numbering scheme and so we have the > opportunity to pull the 10.0.0.0-M1 release if necessary. > > 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: The current plan: > Jakarta EE 9: 10.0.0.x > Jakarta EE 10: 10.0.x (x>=1) > Jakarta EE 11: 11.0.x > Java EE 8 : 9.y.x (where y == major Tomcat version) > > > Option B: Continue with existing numbering > Jakarta EE 9: 10.0.x > Jakarta EE 10: 11.0.x > Jakarta EE 11: 12.0.x > Java EE 8 : 9.y.x (where y == major Tomcat version) > > > Option C: No stable Jakarta EE 9 release > Jakarta EE 9: 10.0.0-Mx > Jakarta EE 10: 10.0.x > Jakarta EE 11: 11.0.x > Java EE 8 : 9.y.x (where y == major Tomcat version) > > > Option D: > Jakarta EE 9: 10.0.x > Jakarta EE 10: 10.1.x > Jakarta EE 11: 11.0.x > Java EE 8 : 9.y.x (where y == major Tomcat version) > I think I prefer option A, with D as a secondary. Initially I liked C the best, but given the conversation I agree that it's probably not the best way forward. Either way we do it is going to be somewhat confusing for folks I think, at least initially, but the options we have all seem pretty easy to explain. > > > My own thoughts: > > I don't like option B because the off-by-one issue between Jakarta EE > and Tomcat. It is manageable at the moment but I worry that it will > cause confusion once we have the 9.y.x branch. > > I don't like option C because I think we need a stable, supported, > passing the TCK Jakarta EE 9 release. Also, Jakarta EE 10 is meant to > follow shortly after Jakarta EE 9 but what if it doesn't? > > For me, the choice is between A and D. If Jakarta EE 10 is very soon > after Jakarta EE 9 then I think option A is better. However, D isn't > that far behind and as soon as Jakarta EE 10 doesn't follow shortly > after Jakarta EE 9 I think D begins to look better. As I think about it, > the EOL decision we make for Jakarta EE 9 support depends a lot on how > quickly Jakarta EE 10 follows and I think D gives us more flexibility. > Finally, D is more consistent with how we have done things in the past > (4.1.x, 5.5.x, 8.5.x etc) > > Thoughts? > > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
