Just put a openjpa-2.0.0-beta2 up for a vote this afternoon, so hopefully it'll be ready in time for your release to use it....
-Donald On 2/23/10 4:38 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
