I agree that we should release as little as is necessary. I'm not sure if the current changes to JPA would make it 0.3.1 or 0.4. and as far as I am aware the only dependency that would also need a release is org.apache.aries.uitl. I don't know how close util is to a 1.0 release, so we may want an interim delivery.
Regards, Tim > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:23:40 +0100 > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] JPA project release > To: [email protected] > > Whoops, missed this thread somehow when I just posted another (!) > discussion thread. Please take a look at the set of bundles I listed > over on the other thread to see what you think. > > Cheers, > Jeremy > > On 28 June 2011 19:38, Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: > > Go for it. > > > > On 28 June 2011 11:35, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Tim, > >> > >> If JPA works fine with only requirement of a new utils release, it makes > >> sense for me. > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> > >> > >> On 06/28/2011 12:23 PM, Timothy Ward wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> There have been a number of calls on the list for a release, most of which > >>> seem to be focussed on new JPA function. > >>> > >>> I think that the following things would need to happen to get JPA into a > >>> place we can release it: > >>> > >>> Sort the OSGi 4.3 dependency to remove the Equinox 3.7 download pomGet > >>> Equinox 3.7 up in Maven > >>> Move to the released version of Equinox in the itests > >>> The JPA container has dependencies on the changes in the uitls project, > >>> but I believe it should still work with the latest release of blueprint, > >>> proxy and transactions. If this is the case we would only need a utils > >>> release at the same time. > >>> > >>> Do we think a release is appropriate? Any other thoughts? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Tim > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Alasdair Nottingham > > [email protected] > >
