No, it's not. We should never release anything with a snapshot dependency. That would make the build much more likely to not succeed in the future, as snapshots are meant to be deleted from repositories from time to time.
FWIW, I could try to release the new maven bundle plugin next week or so. On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 15:21, 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? > > > 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 > > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
