Thanks Dan. My fix to CXF-3209 introduced these regression failures . I've reverted these changes in 2.3.x branch . I'll look this issue again and provide some better test for it .
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > I want to give Jim a bit more time to investigate what is causing the > failures. I chatted with him a bit on IRC and I'm not exactly sure how the > test is SUPPOSED to work at all so it's hard to say what is going on. > > THAT said, -1's on release votes are not a veto. Thus, as release manager, > it's my discretion as to how to handle the -1. My gut feeling, right now, > would be to release 2.3.2 "as is" as the standalone JAX-WS TCK does pass and > thus all of OUR claims are OK. Once we get a handle on the J2EE level > things, we can quickly spin a 2.3.3. I really have no issues with a "release > often" approach. > > That said, I do want to give Jim a little more time to look into it. Since > there is still 20ish hours left on the vote, it's not something I'll commit to > either way RIGHT NOW. It may end being something JBoss can work around and > we won't need to worry about it. (that has happened a couple times in the > past) > > Dan > > > On Wednesday 19 January 2011 10:59:03 pm Glen Mazza wrote: >> I don't think a new vote is necessary, because as stated the vote covers >> both portions. So everyone has voted +1 and +1 up to Jim. >> >> To be valid, a veto must have a justifiable reason, and Jim certainly >> does have one for CXF 2.3.2 but not CXF XJC 2.3.2, so the latter can >> still proceed (if desirable). I would very much like to get CXF XJC >> 2.3.2 fixed so I don't have to keep taking out the JAXB 2.2 libraries >> from my JDK when I try to make a build. That said, I suspect Dan >> wouldn't want to release one without the other, it's just that a second >> vote isn't needed IMO. >> >> Glen >> >> On 19.01.2011 22:37, Willem Jiang wrote: >> > Maybe we can consider to release XJC 2.3.2 as it doesn't relate to TCK >> > failures. And we don't need to cut new version of XJC 2.3.2 again. >> > >> > Can we start a new vote for CXF XJC 2.3.2 ? >> > >> > Willem >> > >> > On 1/20/11 11:02 AM, Jim Ma wrote: >> >> I have to vote -1 for this release. >> >> The new changes in tagged CXF 2.3.2 introduced several JEE6 TCK >> >> regression failures . I am looking for a quick fix for these failures. >> >> >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Eric >> >> >> >> Johnson<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Christian Schneider >> >>> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> +1 >> >>>> >> >>>> Christian >> >>>> >> >>>> Am 18.01.2011 05:26, schrieb Daniel Kulp: >> >>>>> We've had a busy 8 weeks or so despite the holidays. We've >> >>>>> managed to >> >>>>> fix over 75 JIRA issues since 2.3.1 which is quite remarkable . >> >>>>> This also >> >>>>> fixes a bunch of OSGi related issues that are needed for >> >>>>> Camel and ServiceMix. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Note: this vote also includes a release of the cxf-xjc-utils to >> >>>>> fix a >> >>>>> bunch of issues that were resolved there. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> List of issues: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=123159 >> >>>>> 21&styleName=Text&projectId=12310511&Create=Create >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The Maven staging areas are at: >> >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecxf-041/ >> >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecxf-042/ >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The distributions are in: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecxf-042/o >> >>>>> rg/apache/cxf/apache-cxf/2.3.2/ >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This release is tagged at: >> >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/tags/cxf-2.3.2 >> >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/xjc-utils/tags/xjc-utils-2.3.2/ >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Here is my +1. > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] > http://dankulp.com/blog >
