Could be that I start writing during the weekend. Have to have it finished by friday 13th (I hope the date means luck in this case).
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:37 PM, David Blevins <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
