nope, we first do the RESOLVED and not closed. The reason is that we bulk-change them later to closed once we finally shipped the release.
LieGrue, strub >________________________________ > From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Cc: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, 7 November 2013, 21:49 >Subject: Re: Time for 1.2.1? > > >Hey guys, > >Trying to prepare the release. >Was cleaning up JIRA >https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20OWB%20AND%20resolution%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 > >
