here are my two sense, cause it does not make sense to always wait for a release or always for a bug to fix. We depend on a lot of project, so I would prefer to release more even if we identified some bugs we cannot fix at a time but at least we are able to release more than once a year.
So, as nobody objected, I will start OWB release. If OWB-912 is not fully fixed, we can push a 1.2.2 soon because we have other things to fix/do. For OpenJPA, if the vote is not launched before Friday, we can fork as we did in the past and integrate the final release as soon as it gets out. Any thoughts/objections? JLouis 2013/11/6 David Blevins <[email protected]> > On the OPENJPA-2335 note. Alex, Tim, Judah and all the 3ds guys on the > users@tomee list are saying they'll have to drop Apache TomEE from their > product unless they get a release. They've been asking since July. Seems > there cutoff is Friday. > > Looks like the most pragmatic way to make everyone happy is to do two > releases. One now and one again when OPENJPA-2335 is fixed and OpenJPA > 2.3.0 is released. Then there's no need to rush. > > > -David > > On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Well, TomEE is mostly blocked by OPENJPA-2335. This is a regression > which is in there since a few months and blows up many of my old apps which > run fine with openjpa-2.2.2 and lower. I've committed a test (currently > failing of course) to the 2.3.x branch in openjpa. > > > > > > I'm mostly offline this week due to holding talks on W-JAX. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 6:49 > >> Subject: Re: Time for 1.2.1? > >> > >> > >> Hey, > >> > >> Still there at least for the moment lol > >> Did not get news from Mark on the issue above. We discuss with Romain > but > >> we wanted another feedback. If someone else could have a look we could > >> start the release today and have binaries for vote today. > >> > >> Thanks a lot > >> Jean Louis > >> > >> Le 6 nov. 2013 06:29, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> > >>> We have a regression (found on tomee list). I proposed a patch but it > needs > >>> some review (Mark wanted to have a deeper look if I didnt > misunderstand). > >>> This is clearly blocking ATM :(. > >>> Le 6 nov. 2013 04:39, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >>> > >>>> Jean-Louis fixed the issue and mentioned he would release today. But > I > >>>> also know the "release" of his first baby boy is a few days overdue > :) I > >>>> suspect he's suddenly got quite busy. :) > >>>> > >>>> If we don't hear from him tomorrow, I'll plan on jumping in for him to > >>> get > >>>> the release started. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -David > >>>> > >>>> On Nov 4, 2013, at 12:36 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> Ok lemme at least try this morning. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jean-Louis > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 2013/11/4 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >>>>> > >>>>>> We should fix the session destroy issue first. > >>>>>> Should be really easy. > >>>>>> Anyone likes to take over? > >>>>>> I have 3 conf talks to deliver this week, thus my time is a bit > short > >>>> this > >>>>>> week... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> LieGrue, > >>>>>> strub > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>> From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>>> Cc: > >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, 4 November 2013, 8:24 > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Time for 1.2.1? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Lol > >>>>>>> I've been discussing with Mark for a while. We were waiting some > >>> fixes > >>>>>> but > >>>>>>> I should start the release early this week, maybe today or so. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Le 4 nov. 2013 03:09, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> a écrit : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Anyone have any objections if I roll a 1.2.1 release? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -David > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Jean-Louis > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > -- Jean-Louis
