i'll redo my fix on trunk then we'll be able to use the previous version. - Romain
2012/1/4 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > really, from owb-1.1.3 to 1.1.4 there is not much difference beside the > fix I did for Romain. > > I agree that this is important for your scenario, but most people will not > have this issue. > > Romain, is it possible that you just upgrade the owb-impl.jar locally and > we go on with 1.1.3 so far? > > I'm really +1 for releasing now and then in 1 month from now. The > previously released tomee version really had some big glitches, and we need > to ship something to be able to make any users able to give tomee a serious > run... > > I'm sure we will get back a lot feedback and there will be other things > which must get improved as well in this month! > > In ~1M we will get bval to TLP and release bval-1.0, release owb-1.1.4 and > release OpenJPA-2.2.0 (already triggered the discuss about it). > > LieGrue, > strub > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David Blevins <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: > > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:01 PM > > Subject: Re: Release time? > > > > > > 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > >
