I wouldn't vote -1 if it's not included. I don't think it's a major change and I'm sure we'll live if it's the first fix in 1.0.1. My opinion is that it's nice to have but no show stopper.
Unless anyone else has strong feelings that it should go in? -Mike On 8/22/07, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It looks like Marc kicked off a build at 1:30 or so that finished > before your change made it in... should we wait around for him to get > back from dinner (he's on the east coast this week) and do a new one, > or start a vote on the one that just finished uploading? > > -Patrick > > On 8/22/07, Kevin Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just completed moving openjpa-326 over to the 1.0.0 branch. > > > > On 8/22/07, Kevin Sutter < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/22/07, Patrick Linskey < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't think that Marc plans to throw away the branch -- note that > > > > there is a decent amount of work in it at this point that is not in > > > > trunk. So, he'd then have to also merge all those changes down to > > > > trunk, and then we'd need to decide if everything in trunk was > > > > suitable etc. > > > > > > > > > Yep, that's what I noticed. That's why I was asking the > question. Just > > > making sure we were all on the same page of the > process... :-) Thanks. > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > -Patrick > > > > > > > > On 8/22/07, Kevin Sutter < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The fix is already in openjpa trunk, it just needs to move over to > the > > > > > 1.0.0branch. We might as well fix it. We were just wondering > what > > > > > the process > > > > > was -- whether Marc was going to start over with another cut from > > > > trunk or > > > > > just re-spin from the branch. We'll move this change over > quickly... > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > On 8/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that it's fair game for hardening / bugfix changes, but > I > > > > > > don't think that we should hold up the release for everything. > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that a new candidate build will be kicking off in the next > 30 > > > > > > mins or so (if it hasn't already). > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think that this issue is worth holding things up for, or > is > > > > > > this more of a serendipitious situation? > > > > > > > > > > > > -Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/22/07, Michael Dick < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Is the branch considered "open" and fair game for other new > > > > changes? I'm > > > > > > > just curious whether I can / should port OPENJPA-326 to 1.0.0 > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/22/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenJPA Developers- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am rescinding this vote for the second time, due to the > recent > > > > > > > > problems we discovered with the new enhancer property. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I expect that within the next few hours we'll have a new > > > > artifact > > > > > > > > uploaded and either I or Patrick will start a new vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for all the false starts, but we want to be sure we > get it > > > > > > > > right. Thanks for your patience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 21, 2007, at 11:59 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenJPA Developers- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A second attempt is now being made to cut the 1.0.0release > > > > after > > > > > > > > > the discussion at http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Approve- > > > > > > > > > OpenJPA-1.0.0-release-tf4306366.html . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A candidate build for OpenJPA 1.0.0 is available at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.0.0/downloads/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review these artifacts and signatures, and vote > whether > > > > we > > > > > > > > > should release them as Apache OpenJPA version 1.0.0. > Release > > > > notes > > > > > > > > > for this release are included in the artifact, or can be > > > > browsed at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa- > > > > > > > > > project/RELEASE- NOTES.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Apache Release Audit Tool has been run on the release, > and > > > > no > > > > > > > > > missing licenses were found with the exceptions listed in > the > > > > > > > > > exclusion section of the "rat-maven-plugin" configuration > in > > > > http:// > > > > > > > > > svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.0.0/pom.xml . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In accordance with http://www.apache.org/foundation/ > > > > > > > > > voting.html#ReleaseVotes , three +1 votes will be > sufficient > > > > to > > > > > > > > > approve the release for publication. While it is not > possible > > > > to > > > > > > > > > veto a release, the vote will remain open for the standard > 3 > > > > day > > > > > > > > > period (ending at 23:59 EST on Friday 8/24) in order to > allow > > > > > > > > > people to thoroughly review the release and perform > whatever > > > > > > > > > additional testing they desire and raise any concerns or > > > > objections. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A vote of "+1" means you approve of the release for > > > > publication, > > > > > > > > > "-1" means you do not approve, and a "+0" or "-0" means > you > > > > are > > > > > > > > > neutral. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for your diligence in helping to ensure > that > > > > the > > > > > > > > > quality of the OpenJPA 1.0.0 release reflects the high > quality > > > > of > > > > > > > > > all of its contributors! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Patrick Linskey > > > > > > 202 669 5907 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Patrick Linskey > > > > 202 669 5907 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Patrick Linskey > 202 669 5907 >
