On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > 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).
Agree on all points. Nicely phrased. Going to branch and see if I can get this rolling. -David > ----- 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>
