Kind of off-topic: My I use this branch next week while working on the TomEE magazine article?
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:58 PM, David Blevins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >
