or better - create a release branch now for this version and apply your fix there. This will also make it possible to run the TCK without interrupting any work on trunk in the meantime. Then you folks can later do small fixes without interfering with other work.
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:39 PM > Subject: Re: Release time? > > 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 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >
