So that means you did not include solutions for the 2 JIRAs mentioned
earlier?
Joe
Donald Woods wrote:
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
--
Joe
