On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > -> the 0.3 release of bval means changing the bval tck setup > -> the bug of owb 1.1.3 is not tested in TCKs (as a lot of others): > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1224895
Cool. Can you file a JIRA for that one. This is basically the "can't add interceptors via an extension" bug right? -David > > 2012/1/4 David Blevins <[email protected]> > >> >> On Jan 4, 2012, at 12:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> >>> if you have the openjpa-maven-plugin-2.2.0-SNAPSHOT, then you most >> definitely also have openjpa itself in 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT. >>> >>> I'm using an internally released version of it in 2 projects, and >> OpenJPA-2.2.0-SNAPSHOT is really stable. >>> >>> So we could also push for shipping an OpenJPA release. I can take over >> driving this part (I'm OpenJPA committer). >>> I found quite a few (personal) show stoppers in openjpa-2.1.x which we >> fixed in 2.2.x >> >> Any gut feeling on how long releases take in OpenJPA-land? >> >>> If you still like to use openjpa-2.1.x, then just use the >> org.codehaus.mojo version of the plugin instead [1]. They are basically the >> same source, I just moved the plugin over to openjpa to make it easier to >> maintain and test with OpenJPA itself. >> >> Probably the TCK will be the biggest indicator if we can switch, then >> 2.2.x release time. >> >> Not sure where our SNAPSHOT discussions will end up, but I can see us >> potentially releasing now with prior versions of the SNAPSHOTs then >> beginning another release in 2-3 weeks as the newer versions come along. >> >> Seems like there's some merit in releasing now and giving people just a >> bit more time to get their releases out the door. >> >> >> -David >> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: David Blevins <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 7:56 AM >>>> Subject: Re: Release time? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:52 PM, David Blevins wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:57 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we use timestamped snapshot as a workaround (for snapshot deps, I >>>> mean)? >>>>> >>>>> We could maybe release the code ourselves like Geronimo does from time >> to >>>> time. Just copy it in, update the groupIds and release it. >>>> >>>> Looking at our snapshots we have: >>>> >>>> - javaee-api 6.0-3-SNAPSHOT >>>> - cxf 2.5.1-SNAPSHOT >>>> - owb 1.1.4-SNAPSHOT >>>> - bval 0.4-incubating-SNAPSHOT >>>> - karaf-maven-plugin 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>> - openejb-openwebbeans-jsf 1.1.2-SNAPSHOT >>>> - org.apache.karaf.tooling.exam.container 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>> - openjpa-maven-plugin 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT >>>> - openejb-jstl 1.3-SNAPSHOT >>>> >>>> Some of these will be easy to deal with, but these seem a bit trickier: >>>> >>>> - karaf-maven-plugin 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>> - org.apache.karaf.tooling.exam.container 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>> - openjpa-maven-plugin 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT >>>> >>>> From a compliance perpective it looks like we're good with the following >>>> previous versions: >>>> >>>> - cxf 2.5.0 >>>> - owb 1.1.3 >>>> - bval 0.3-incubating (our patched version) >>>> >>>> We could easily release again in two weeks or so when these things are >> all >>>> released. We keep saying we want to release more frequently but we >> haven't >>>> yet done it. Releasing again when these binaries are out might be a >> good way to >>>> get into that habit. >>>> >>>> Holding our release isn't that appealing and neither is using >>>> non-reproducable timestamped versions. Neither are really good habits. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >> >>
