On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:57 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> ant elder wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto: >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new >>>>> function out in 1.3.1. <http://1.3.1.> JMS changes that fix >>>>> deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates though. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes? >>>>> There are no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x >>>>> as opposed to 1.x.x so i think its fine to add new function in a >>>>> 1.x.x style release. If the concern is that it may delay getting >>>>> some critical fixes released then maybe we just need to coordinate >>>>> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases? >>>>> Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively easy >>>>> as demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do >>>>> and to review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an easy >>>>> way to get new function released, and it can be done by individuals >>>>> instead of requiring lots of community help. As i just suggested on >>>>> the "1.3 Washup, release process improvement" this seems like and >>>>> easy way to RERO given the size of Tuscany these days. >>>>> >>>>> ...ant >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from >>>>> JIRAs in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if >>>>> anyone >>>>> has some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a >>>>> little longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into >>>>> 1.3.x. >>>>> >>>>> I have completed the fix for TUSCANY-2531 now. This needs to go into >>>> 1.3.1. The fix passes a full build and I'll check it in later today. >>>> >>>> Simon >>>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> We are down to 3 issues related to 1.3.1. >>> >>> TUSCANY-2534 >>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1? >>> TUSCANY-2514 >>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1? >>> TUSCANY-2542 >>> Looks like a stretch for 1.3.1 >>> >>> If we can get the first two closed out I think we can spin a release >>> candidate. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> >> Ok, seems like we've accepted there should be a 1.3.1 release now so i'll >> do these and spin an RC1, i'll try to get that done by late Monday, >> >> ...ant >> > > There are some release artifacts for 1.3.1 available for review at > http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/>and > a tag at > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.3.1-RC0/ > > I'll leave this for a day or two to give time for any reviews and look at > starting an RC1 release vote on say Wednesday. > > ...ant > Hi I tried a good selection of samples and demos and all is fine on the command line and in Tomcat. However we haven't solved all of the issues with WebSphere classloading. It seems that there some scenarios where the change to remove dependencies on xml-apis, xerces and xalan (TUSCANY-2534) causes other problems that I'm still investigating. Simon
