Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of willem.jiang@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.128.184 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=tq+1H5fV1Xd5NRv9XIfep8ZwJ3Ku9aqsyl0Ocfam4Te2O5WOQY5L0AFHJ7KYVM71Ol
         aBUCsRZw6p5vUmSE8TFvsp/gRiU4Rq5i/IlTfKNrBOvu8aMv6k0j7ka5OuEto43Ja2dX
         +kGPb55Br4ZWWkHZGj1Gu/LSWYhJfOvZnPLig=
Message-ID: <c52c8a780810041737o709a8143qb6d2967b76808cf8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:37:17 +0800
From: "Willem Jiang" <willem.jiang@gmail.com>
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
In-Reply-To: <48E6B92B.60608@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_38331_13383759.1223167037682"
References: <200810021249.30447.dkulp@apache.org>
	 <48E67508.7090909@die-schneider.net> <48E6B92B.60608@gmail.com>

------=_Part_38331_13383759.1223167037682
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi Christian,

All your JMS refactoring patches are in the 2.0.x branch and the test result
looks good :)

Willem

On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Willem Jiang <willem.jiang@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Christian,
>
> Most of your JMS patches were merged into the 2.0.x branch , and there are
> not much differences between the CXF 2.0.x JMS module and CXF 2.1.x JMS
> module. I think it is easy to merge your latest change into the CXF 2.0.x.
> Don't worry , I will keep on an eye on it ;)
>
> Willem
>
> Christian Schneider wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> I have got a question about the new releases. Should we include the
>> changes in the JMS transport in one of them?
>> Ron Gavlin asked to include the changes in the 2.0.x branch on the jira
>> issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1832.
>> I could imagine to include them into 2.1.3 but I would rather leave them
>> out of 2.0.9. What do you think? Are there some general guidelines how to
>> handle this?
>>
>> Is there already a time scale? I would like to include the upcoming new
>> JMS configuration style in the release but this will take at least another
>> one or two weeks.
>>
>> Greetings
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> Daniel Kulp schrieb:
>>
>>> We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
>>> It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2.   We have
>>> 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3.   Thus, we probably
>>> should consider doing some releases shortly.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
>>> that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a release
>>> to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all bottled up in
>>> my head.    Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for doing the releases.
>>> If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it, but it would definitely be good
>>> to get someone else involved.
>>>
>>> Requirements:
>>> 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux or OSX
>>> box.   Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work".  If someone want to try
>>> Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help. 2) gpg installed and a gpg key
>>> generated and available in the public key servers.   Ideally, it would be
>>> signed by other apache folks, but that's not a requirment.  Anyone near
>>> Boston, we could meet for lunch and sign keys if you want.
>>>
>>> 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to review
>>> release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc....   Post release,
>>> there is syncing to the maven repo, updating confluence, some JIRA admin
>>> things, etc....   Basically, a few hours ahead of the build, an hour to
>>> build, three days for the vote, and a few hours afterword. Anyway, if anyone
>>> is interested, speak up.  I'd be happy to look over your virtual shoulder
>>> while you do the stuff to make sure it's all done right.   Not a problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

------=_Part_38331_13383759.1223167037682--