Branch created: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-4.0.0-beta-2/
On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
