I don't have any opinion on whether to include it or not. I'm happy
to create a new build, but unfortunately I'm on the road tonight, so
it won't happen until tomorrow mid-day EST.
I'll leave it to your judgement on whether it is worth the additional
short delay in the release to re-cut.
On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Michael Dick wrote:
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
