On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > No, this ones is not available with previous owb. Was the same with > interceptor bindings. > > However i still think 1.1.4 should be used since it fixes issues relative > to cdi 1.0 itself.
Right, I think it comes down to: should we release now and then again in two or three weeks, or should we just release in two or three weeks. So either way I see a release in our future in 2 or 3 weeks. I see that release as a constant. Will happen regardless. The real question is are the issues in beta-1 and 1.1.1 bad enough that we should try and release something now as well? -David > Le 4 janv. 2012 18:19, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> >> 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 >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
