Ok, if everyone is ok, I gonna try to roll the 1.2.1. Even if the vote gets canceled, it's still a good exercise for me :D
JLouis 2013/11/8 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > No problem, let it as is. > > It's just easier to keep track of what really was done and part of the > release imo. > Especially if you have to reroll. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > >To: openwebbeans-dev <[email protected]>; Mark Struberg < > [email protected]> > >Sent: Friday, 8 November 2013, 10:00 > >Subject: Re: Time for 1.2.1? > > > > > >oops sorry :s > >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 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > >> 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 > >>> > >>> > > > > > -- Jean-Louis
