On 25 March 2010 14:21, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 March 2010 19:19, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: >> Jeremy Hughes wrote: >>> >>> Hi Don, I think we're close. I had wanted to get artifacts up to vote >>> on this week. I guess the open jpa release vote closes 2am GMT >>> Saturday and those fixes for Aries JPA issues are OPENJPA-1491 and >>> OPENJPA-1524 right? There are workaround for both the 1491 workaround >>> is in Aries itself so that wouldn't affect users, the workaround for >>> 1524 mentioned by Joe is a change to a blueprint.xml so impacts users. >>> >>> Ideally I'd like to pull in beta3. Anyone else have a preference? >> >> I agree that we should pull in beta3 and drop the work-around. >> >> I'd also like to point out that we are still using a SNAPSHOT version of the >> maven-bundle-plugin (2.1.0-SNAPSHOT) and, as Guillaume mentioned in a recent >> post - there are still changes being made to this plugin. We would need an >> official release of this plugin before we could make an Aries release. > > OK, so what's the rule here w.r.t using SNAPSHOTS when you release? Is > it: users shouldn't be expected to use SNAPSHOTs of depedencies. Or is > it: people who want to build the code themselves shouldn't be expected > to have to download SNAPSHOTs. If the former then maven-bundle-plugin > can be a SNAPSHOT right? > > mvn release:prepare asks this: > > There are still some remaining snapshot dependencies.: Do you want to > resolve them now? (yes/no) no: : yes > Dependency type to resolve,: specify the selection number ( 0:All > 1:Project Dependencies 2:Plugins 3:Reports 4:Extensions ): (0/1/2/3) > 1: : > > is it ok release if you accept the default of 1?
well that's frustrating ... it seems even if I select 1, it complains that the default-parent pom is using a SNAPSHOT of maven-bundle-plugin even though it is a plugin dependency not a project dependency! > >> Is >> this something that you are working on Guillaume? >> >> >> Joe >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jeremy >>> >>> There I think it's worth waiting that little bit extra for it so the >>> 1524 workaround isn't needed >>> >>> On 24 March 2010 02:39, Donald Woods <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> What's the status on a release? I've just put a openjpa-2.0.0-beta3 up >>>> for a vote, which includes fixes for two Aries JPA issues.... >>>> >>>> >>>> -Donald >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/26/10 12:34 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There's been a lot of activity lately so I'd like to propose we do a >>>>> release so we can get some wider user feedback. I think we should give >>>>> it a version of 0.1 and stick to versions <1 while we're in the >>>>> Incubator. >>>>> >>>>> Then there is the question of whether to independently version the >>>>> high level modules or keep them lock-step. For now I think we should >>>>> keep them lock-step until we feel a need to change that. >>>>> >>>>> What does everyone think? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jeremy >>>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Joe >> >
