+1 :)

On Nov 8, 2013, at 1:34 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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

Reply via email to