On 25 March 2010 14:34, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Do you mean if you wanted to rebuild a released Aries sources.zip? If so then I can see that. > > FWIW, I could try to release the new maven bundle plugin next week or so. That would be great thanks! > > 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 >
