oh, already commited - Romain
2012/1/4 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > 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 > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >
