cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release 3.0RC2
Date Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:23:39 GMT

On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
> CAY-1368 is now fixed, other issues will probably do this week.

The fix seems to have some global consequences (unsurprisingly, as it  
changes some fundamental methods in DbEntity and ObjEntity). I haven't  
looked at the details, but we do have hudson failures (which I see you  
are fixing now), and also the test cases do not check that the results  
are correct (i.e. prefetching is actually working as expected vs.  
simply not throwing an exception). I am a bit uneasy about including  
such a consequential change in 3.0 at this point. Do you think there  
is a more localized workaround, even if it is a hack, for the stable  
branch? But maybe I am too paranoid.

> Since this is expected to be latest milestone,

It doesn't have to be, although from slow voting on RC2, I guess as a  
practical matter doing yet another RC is too painful for everyone  
involved :-/

> may I ask that you redeploy artifacts after EJBQL issues are  
> finished and we test it again?

Good question. I'd say it depends on what the problem is and whether  
there is a problem. (Do you have time to look at that BTW?) Also we  
have a bunch of EJBQL holes plugged on trunk already, but not on 3.0  
(most notably CAY-1069, but also CAY-1366 now in progress). So we have  
a choice of further delaying 3.0, treating those as "known  
limitations", or something in between - fixing them in 3.0.1...

Based on the past history of major releases (1.0, 1.1, 1.2) I was a  
bit skeptical about us being able to go from Alpha to final in just a  
couple of months. The thing just has to settle down and stabilize.  
Which means responding to bug reports for some time and releasing as  
many RC's as needed. The rate of new Jiras coming in clearly indicates  
that we need more time, unless we adopt a different definition of a  
final release (N.0 is released as "final", but it is really alpha,  
with fixes being done as N.0.1, N.0.2, etc.)

I tend to agree that we need to recall the vote and redo the files to  
include your fixes (which may not save us from RC3, unless the bug  
reports suddenly stop flowing)... And maybe also include CAY-1069...

Thoughts?

Andrus




Mime
View raw message