Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:12 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: +1 ... sorry for the delay. Already counted you with your "I'm ok with the vote proceeding as is...+1" comment. -David On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:28 PM, David Blevins wrote: We have 6 +1 votes, but it'd be really nice to have more. Please vote! :) Going to close this out tomorrow. -David On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote: Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release. Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/ branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/ Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/ org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/ I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final. Here's my +1 -David Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
+1 ... sorry for the delay. On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:28 PM, David Blevins wrote: We have 6 +1 votes, but it'd be really nice to have more. Please vote! :) Going to close this out tomorrow. -David On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote: Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release. Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/ branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/ Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/ org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/ I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final. Here's my +1 -David Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
We have 6 +1 votes, but it'd be really nice to have more. Please vote! :) Going to close this out tomorrow. -David On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote: Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release. Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/ branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/ Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/ apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/ I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final. Here's my +1 -David
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
On Jan 2, 2007, at 3:21 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Jan 2, 2007, at 5:19 PM, David Blevins wrote: Hey All, back and catching up. As I mentioned in the first specs vote that I proposed "I've done the work to fix some of our spec jars so they are compliant and would like us to start releasing them and removing snapshot references from our builds." I've since started abbreviating that to "Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release" as the changes the changes are pretty much N iterations of added/removed/ updated a (or many) constructor/method/annotation. Anyway, I was half inclined to put links to the related commits in the vote threads as the diffs are the only real way to describe several API tweaks, but just didn't pull the trigger on that idea. Wish I had. Here's that info now: Changes to Annotations 1.0 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489255 Changes to EJB 3.0 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=489258 Changes to EJB 3.0 Persistence (JPA) http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489260 EJB 3.0 Interceptors and JTA 1.1 were fine hence the description of "Verified and compliant and ready for release" in their release threads. I haven't yet had the chance to verify any other specs for compliance. The jacc-1.1 spec has a significant amount of functionality in the permission classes so it needs more than just signature verification before we release it. Definitely. -David
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
On Jan 2, 2007, at 5:19 PM, David Blevins wrote: Hey All, back and catching up. As I mentioned in the first specs vote that I proposed "I've done the work to fix some of our spec jars so they are compliant and would like us to start releasing them and removing snapshot references from our builds." I've since started abbreviating that to "Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release" as the changes the changes are pretty much N iterations of added/removed/ updated a (or many) constructor/method/annotation. Anyway, I was half inclined to put links to the related commits in the vote threads as the diffs are the only real way to describe several API tweaks, but just didn't pull the trigger on that idea. Wish I had. Here's that info now: Changes to Annotations 1.0 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489255 Changes to EJB 3.0 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=489258 Changes to EJB 3.0 Persistence (JPA) http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489260 EJB 3.0 Interceptors and JTA 1.1 were fine hence the description of "Verified and compliant and ready for release" in their release threads. I haven't yet had the chance to verify any other specs for compliance. The jacc-1.1 spec has a significant amount of functionality in the permission classes so it needs more than just signature verification before we release it. thanks david jencks Happy New Year! -David
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Hey All, back and catching up. As I mentioned in the first specs vote that I proposed "I've done the work to fix some of our spec jars so they are compliant and would like us to start releasing them and removing snapshot references from our builds." I've since started abbreviating that to "Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release" as the changes the changes are pretty much N iterations of added/removed/updated a (or many) constructor/method/annotation. Anyway, I was half inclined to put links to the related commits in the vote threads as the diffs are the only real way to describe several API tweaks, but just didn't pull the trigger on that idea. Wish I had. Here's that info now: Changes to Annotations 1.0 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489255 Changes to EJB 3.0 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=489258 Changes to EJB 3.0 Persistence (JPA) http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489260 EJB 3.0 Interceptors and JTA 1.1 were fine hence the description of "Verified and compliant and ready for release" in their release threads. I haven't yet had the chance to verify any other specs for compliance. Happy New Year! -David
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
I don't think we ever done that before because because up til now everyone has just known what's changed. For this spec he did say "Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release." which based on the diff sadly does describe what has changed for this release :) Anyway, if this is another requirement for a Geronimo release, I'm sure David will add it to the remaining specs he is releasing. I agree that we don't want to get pedantic on the releases; that will just make life more difficult. I think there is a balance between "Release this" and "I updated this that and the other thing and would like to get these out." We need to operate from a position of trust and respect. I think that we'll see both of these be executed with a short statement and an ok from the community. BTW, David was out of town for the holiday weekend and I think he will be back tomorrow of the next day. Happy New Year, And here we go... :) -dain Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
On Dec 31, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: On Dec 31, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Dec 30, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: David is out of town but I think I can answer The previous release was only a milestone. These are final 1.0 jars that have been verified using the JEE 5 signature tests. If you want to know what has changed just run svn diff: Right, but I didn't ask a question. I stated that we ought to be identifying this information in the vote (or a previous discussion thread). All it takes is -- "Testing of the EJB3 spec has identified signature problems in the existing 1.0-M1 release of the spec. I've fixed these problems and updated the version numbers of the specs that EJB3 is dependent on. I propose we release a final 1.0 version of EJB3." This way all voters (and non- voters) understand. I agree that the person proposing the vote should provide some information about what the changes are. It seems a little unreasonable to rely on an svn diff to document the changes. I don't think we ever done that before because because up til now everyone has just known what's changed. For this spec he did say "Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release." which based on the diff sadly does describe what has changed for this release :) Anyway, if this is another requirement for a Geronimo release, I'm sure David will add it to the remaining specs he is releasing. BTW, David was out of town for the holiday weekend and I think he will be back tomorrow of the next day. Happy New Year, -dain
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
On Dec 31, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Dec 30, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: David is out of town but I think I can answer The previous release was only a milestone. These are final 1.0 jars that have been verified using the JEE 5 signature tests. If you want to know what has changed just run svn diff: Right, but I didn't ask a question. I stated that we ought to be identifying this information in the vote (or a previous discussion thread). All it takes is -- "Testing of the EJB3 spec has identified signature problems in the existing 1.0-M1 release of the spec. I've fixed these problems and updated the version numbers of the specs that EJB3 is dependent on. I propose we release a final 1.0 version of EJB3." This way all voters (and non-voters) understand. I agree that the person proposing the vote should provide some information about what the changes are. It seems a little unreasonable to rely on an svn diff to document the changes. For the record -- I'm +1 for a release. Due to the finger check in the original vote, I'd suggest that a new vote be called, but admit that may be going a bit overboard... I'm ok with the vote proceeding as is...+1 --kevan Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
On Dec 31, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Dec 30, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: David is out of town but I think I can answer The previous release was only a milestone. These are final 1.0 jars that have been verified using the JEE 5 signature tests. If you want to know what has changed just run svn diff: Right, but I didn't ask a question. I stated that we ought to be identifying this information in the vote (or a previous discussion thread). All it takes is -- "Testing of the EJB3 spec has identified signature problems in the existing 1.0-M1 release of the spec. I've fixed these problems and updated the version numbers of the specs that EJB3 is dependent on. I propose we release a final 1.0 version of EJB3." This way all voters (and non-voters) understand. Even if there weren't a change to the code, we still need to release final versions, as the M1 versions are just a Milestone on the path to a full final release. For the record -- I'm +1 for a release. Due to the finger check in the original vote, I'd suggest that a new vote be called, but admit that may be going a bit overboard... I think that is overboard. -dain
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
On Dec 30, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: David is out of town but I think I can answer The previous release was only a milestone. These are final 1.0 jars that have been verified using the JEE 5 signature tests. If you want to know what has changed just run svn diff: Right, but I didn't ask a question. I stated that we ought to be identifying this information in the vote (or a previous discussion thread). All it takes is -- "Testing of the EJB3 spec has identified signature problems in the existing 1.0-M1 release of the spec. I've fixed these problems and updated the version numbers of the specs that EJB3 is dependent on. I propose we release a final 1.0 version of EJB3." This way all voters (and non-voters) understand. For the record -- I'm +1 for a release. Due to the finger check in the original vote, I'd suggest that a new vote be called, but admit that may be going a bit overboard... --kevan
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
On Dec 30, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Dec 28, 2006, at 4:29 PM, David Blevins wrote: Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release. Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/ branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/ Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/ org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/ I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final. Here's my +1 -David Well, the above pointer to the release branch is bad. I assume it should be https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/ geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec-1.0/ David, I think these votes should provide a bit of background on how they differ from previously release versions/why they need to be released. David is out of town but I think I can answer The previous release was only a milestone. These are final 1.0 jars that have been verified using the JEE 5 signature tests. If you want to know what has changed just run svn diff: svn diff \ https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo- ejb_3.0_spec-1.0-M1 \ https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo- ejb_3.0_spec -dain
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
On Dec 28, 2006, at 4:29 PM, David Blevins wrote: Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release. Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/ branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/ Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/ apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/ I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final. Here's my +1 -David Well, the above pointer to the release branch is bad. I assume it should be https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/ geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec-1.0/ David, I think these votes should provide a bit of background on how they differ from previously release versions/why they need to be released. Or, prefereably, that should be covered in a Discuss thread, preceding a vote. If the vote was called on https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/ specs/branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec-1.0/, I'd be +1. --kevan
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
+1 -dain On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote: Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release. Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/ branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/ Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/ apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/ I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final. Here's my +1 -David
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
+1 Jacek On 12/28/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release. Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/ branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/ Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/ apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/ I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final. Here's my +1 -David -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.jaceklaskowski.pl
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
+1 Regards, Alan On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote: Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release. Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/ branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/ Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/ apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/ I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final. Here's my +1 -David
