I'll be starting a openjpa-2.0.0-beta2 release tomorrow, if that helps... :-)
-Donald On 2/19/10 11:06 AM, Donald Woods wrote: > I'd like to see JPA included, as we've been working on some Aries > updates over in OpenJPA... > > Also, we're starting to discuss cutting a openjpa-2.0.0-beta2, which > would happen before the end of this month, if that helps to cut your > release..... The big changes from the original beta, would be we now > have a bundle activator and I'm looking at resolving a couple other > defects Tim opened, along with our builds/runtime now requiring Java SE 6. > > -Donald > > > On 2/19/10 3:11 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> I'd like to see at least those included: >> * blueprint >> * jmx >> * jndi >> * transaction >> >> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I haven't really >> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it. >> The transaction component is functional and we've been using it mostly >> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix. >> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not talking about >> declarative transactions for blueprint, note). >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for volunteering >>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a better picture of >>> the plans. >>> >>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and timing since it >>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb means it will be >>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little too steep to >>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong. >>> >>> The more communication the better. It's important to get everybody thinking >>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if there are any >>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of creating a >>> release candidate next week means that we should be getting more restrictive >>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises. >>> >>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or out - but in >>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't functional. At >>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not all of the >>> components are fully functional yet (for example transaction). >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> Jeremy Hughes wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am now out on >>>> vacation until monday. >>>> >>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get what we have >>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So 'must haves' >>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the distribution >>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main area of the >>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's possible. Since >>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns - w.r.t >>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If there are >>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be included please >>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to 0.1 and target >>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to target a new >>>> 0.2 version. WDYT? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Jeremy >>>> >>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jeremy, >>>>> >>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the release and >>>>> potential >>>>> target dates? >>>>> >>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your thoughts in an email >>>>> or >>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as we make >>>>> progress. >>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we would like to see in >>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must have" from "nice to >>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates for the release, >>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the release. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help. >>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting to put those >>>>>>> on the wiki. >>>>>> >>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the process has >>>>>> changed quite a bit :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jeremy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all components at a >>>>>>>>> 0.1 >>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple versioning scheme, IMO. >>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an important >>>>>>>>> step >>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this happen... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --kevan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet >>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>> Open Source SOA >>>>>>> http://fusesource.com >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joe >>> >> >> >> >
