Hi Jean-Louis,
The renaming is fine for me Arne Am 08.11.13 09:37 schrieb "Jean-Louis MONTEIRO" unter <[email protected]>: >OK added the module in the parent pom. >Temporary added -preview to the artifact id. > >ArtifactId changed from openwebbeans-cdi11 to openwebbeans-cdi11-preview. >Is that ok for everybody? > >If yes, I'm ready to create binaries and cast a vote. > >Jean-Louis > > >2013/11/8 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > >> PS: if you release 1.2.1 please activate the cdi11 module. Maybe we >> should append prealpha to the version but it is needed by batchee and >> bval N+1 >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2013/11/8 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: >> > reviewed it for what i was able to do, some review from >> > Gerhard/Mark/Arne would be great too >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > >> > 2013/11/7 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]>: >> >> Hey guys, >> >> >> >> Trying to prepare the release. >> >> Was cleaning up JIRA >> >> >> >>https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20OWB%20AND%20re >>solution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually, JIRA are not marked as resolved and the "fix for" >>attribute is >> >> not set. >> >> Usually, I'm used to set RESOLVED issues to CLOSED and set the "fix >>for" >> >> field to XXX. >> >> Can someone help me to check that list and filter those who are >>really >> >> resolved? >> >> >> >> Then, I can finish the README from the release notes. >> >> >> >> Then, creating, publishing and doing the legal stuff is not that long >> nor >> >> hard. >> >> Thanks for your help. >> >> >> >> Jean-Louis >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/11/7 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> *tested >> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 2013/11/7 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: >> >>> > testes the shadown part just one minute ago and seems not as bad >>as I >> >>> > thought so repassing tcks and I'll commit it >> >>> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >>> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >>> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >>> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > 2013/11/7 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]>: >> >>> >> If that is a blocking issue, I agree, but why not committing the >> fix. >> >>> >> You have one, even if not perfect, it works in some cases. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> If definitely not a good patch, who can help fixing that, that >>was >> my >> >>> main >> >>> >> purpose. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> JLouis >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> 2013/11/7 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> sure, go on. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> LieGrue, >> >>> >>> strub >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >________________________________ >> >>> >>> > From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >To: [email protected] >> >>> >>> >Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 21:41 >> >>> >>> >Subject: Re: Time for 1.2.1? >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >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 >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> -- >> >>> >> Jean-Louis >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jean-Louis >> > > > >-- >Jean-Louis
