1+
On 8 November 2013 11:52, David Blevins <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 > >
