+1, thks JL! 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 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]>: > 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
