I agree. So I made https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/200
Den tor. 6. dec. 2018 kl. 05.26 skrev Arjan Seijkens < [email protected]>: > I think it's best if we only depend on the spec. Without actually diving > into the material I don't know how hard it is to get it to work in that > manner though. > > Kind regards, > Arjan Seijkens > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:51 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: I'd like to release. You agree? And what should we name the > version? > > I'm doing a bit of the same actually, on DataCleaner community edition > though. And I'm running into a banned dependency issue which I can fix > locally in DataCleaner, but I wonder what the best to do is ... > > The issue is with JAXB-RT and JAXWS-RT. With the changes to SugarCRM we > now depend directly on the com.sun... dependencies. We used to only depend > on the spec. What do you think is best? > > Den ons. 5. dec. 2018 kl. 08.11 skrev Kasper Sørensen < > [email protected]>: > > > That sounds reasonable :-) > > > > Den tir. 4. dec. 2018 kl. 23.06 skrev Arjan Seijkens < > > [email protected]>: > > > >> I'll be mostly checking if it doesn't cause any serious problems for > >> building DataCleaner (it works fine for Java 8 after adding a few > >> exclusions in dependencies to DataCleaner), next to that I'm going to > >> do a little bit of testing with SugarCRM. If you don't hear any > >> complaints from me before Friday, please start the release procedure. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Arjan Seijkens > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 8:43 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: I'd like to release. You agree? And what should we name > >> the version? > >> > >> Great, thanks for the input guys. Sounds like we're agreeing on > >> version > >> *5.2.0* then. > >> > >> @Arjan please let us know how much time you're talking about and what > >> you're doing and finding :-) > >> > >> Den tir. 4. dec. 2018 kl. 00.58 skrev Alberto Rodriguez < > >> [email protected]>: > >> > >> > I would bump to 5.2.0 taking into account the updated deps to be > >> > JDK8-11 compatible. > >> > > >> > El mar., 4 dic. 2018 a las 8:10, Arjan Seijkens > >> > (<[email protected] > >> > >) > >> > escribió: > >> > > >> > > I think releasing is a good idea. I'm personally still testing > >> > > the latest java 9 through 11 related changes and maybe will come > >> > > up with some > >> > findings > >> > > based on those changes. So I would like a little time for that. > >> > > > >> > > I personally think 5.2.0 would be the best option for the > >> > > version, > >> > because > >> > > the introduction of java 9 through 11 support is quite a step up > >> > > from my perspective. > >> > > > >> > > Kind regards, > >> > > Arjan Seijkens > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]> > >> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 5:54 AM > >> > > To: [email protected] > >> > > Subject: I'd like to release. You agree? And what should we name > >> > > the version? > >> > > > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > I'd like to release MetaModel rather soon. In the current master > >> > > branch > >> > we > >> > > have these two changes ready: > >> > > > >> > > * [METAMODEL-1205] - Updated build and dependencies to be JDK8-11 > >> > > compatible. Important updates include Guava, POI, Cassandra, Hadoop. > >> > > * [METAMODEL-1206] - Solved Maven version dependent unit test > >> > > issues in ElasticSearch-native module. > >> > > > >> > > They're both pretty much internal, except that the dependency > >> > > updates are going to be pretty significant for anyone upgrading > >> > > from version 5.1.0 > >> > (or > >> > > other recent releases) as their transitive dependencies will > >> > > likely get upgraded as well. > >> > > > >> > > So that brings up the quesion about what to name a new release. > >> > > On one hand it's almost a non-functional upgrade, so we could go > >> > > with version > >> > name > >> > > *5.1.1*. on the other hand it updates the supported and required > >> > > versions of dependencies a lot. So I think I personally think it > >> > > should be version *5.2.0*. What do you think? > >> > > > >> > > - Kasper > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
