On Jan 4, 2012, at 12:29 PM, dsh wrote: > Kind of off-topic: My I use this branch next week while working on the > TomEE magazine article?
Absolutely. Ideally it will be released by then :) -David > > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
