Mark Little wrote:
I suspect that the recent comments also gave credence to the fact that there was a push to get something, no matter what, into 6.0.
Just to clarify my position is
1. We need a decent stop-gap for EAP 6.0, whatever that may be
2. We need the real solution in EAP 6.1
The fork comment wasn't emotive, it was a practical reality. If the TX project was not going to do a 4 release that fixed the problem, then soemone else would have to. It's essentially the same way we handle a thirdparty project (e.g. apache) that does not share our schedule.