openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprud...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RESCIND VOTE] Approve OpenJPA 1.0.0 release (2nd attempt)
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:57:17 GMT

I don't have any opinion on whether to include it or not. I'm happy  
to create a new build, but unfortunately I'm on the road tonight, so  
it won't happen until tomorrow mid-day EST.

I'll leave it to your judgement on whether it is worth the additional  
short delay in the release to re-cut.


On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Michael Dick wrote:

> I wouldn't vote -1 if it's not included.
>
> I don't think it's a major change and I'm sure we'll live if it's  
> the first
> fix in 1.0.1. My opinion is that it's nice to have but no show  
> stopper.
>
> Unless anyone else has strong feelings that it should go in?
>
> -Mike
>
> On 8/22/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It looks like Marc kicked off a build at 1:30 or so that finished
>> before your change made it in... should we wait around for him to get
>> back from dinner (he's on the east coast this week) and do a new one,
>> or start a vote on the one that just finished uploading?
>>
>> -Patrick
>>
>> On 8/22/07, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Just completed moving openjpa-326 over to the 1.0.0 branch.
>>>
>>> On 8/22/07, Kevin Sutter < kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/22/07, Patrick Linskey < plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that Marc plans to throw away the branch -- note  
>>>>> that
>>>>> there is a decent amount of work in it at this point that is  
>>>>> not in
>>>>> trunk. So, he'd then have to also merge all those changes down to
>>>>> trunk, and then we'd need to decide if everything in trunk was
>>>>> suitable etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep, that's what I noticed.  That's why I was asking the
>> question.  Just
>>>> making sure we were all on the same page of the
>> process...  :-)  Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> -Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/22/07, Kevin Sutter < kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The fix is already in openjpa trunk, it just needs to move  
>>>>>> over to
>> the
>>>>>> 1.0.0branch.  We might as well fix it.  We were just wondering
>> what
>>>>>> the process
>>>>>> was -- whether Marc was going to start over with another cut from
>>>>> trunk or
>>>>>> just re-spin from the branch.  We'll move this change over
>> quickly...
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/22/07, plinskey@gmail.com < plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that it's fair game for hardening / bugfix changes, but
>> I
>>>>>>> don't think that we should hold up the release for everything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that a new candidate build will be kicking off in the next
>> 30
>>>>>>> mins or so (if it hasn't already).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think that this issue is worth holding things up for,
or
>> is
>>>>>>> this more of a serendipitious situation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Patrick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/22/07, Michael Dick < michael.d.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is the branch considered "open" and fair game for other new
>>>>> changes? I'm
>>>>>>>> just curious whether I can / should port  OPENJPA-326 to
1.0.0
>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/22/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OpenJPA Developers-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am rescinding this vote for the second time, due to
the
>> recent
>>>>>>>>> problems we discovered with the new enhancer property.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I expect that within the next few hours we'll have a
new
>>>>> artifact
>>>>>>>>> uploaded and either I or Patrick will start a new vote.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry for all the false starts, but we want to be sure
we
>> get it
>>>>>>>>> right. Thanks for your patience.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2007, at 11:59 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OpenJPA Developers-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A second attempt is now being made to cut the 1.0.0release
>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>> the discussion at http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Approve-
>>>>>>>>>> OpenJPA-1.0.0-release-tf4306366.html .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A candidate build for OpenJPA 1.0.0 is available
at:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.0.0/downloads/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please review these artifacts and signatures, and
vote
>> whether
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> should release them as Apache OpenJPA version 1.0.0.
>> Release
>>>>> notes
>>>>>>>>>> for this release are included in the artifact, or
can be
>>>>> browsed at:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-
>>>>>>>>>> project/RELEASE- NOTES.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Apache Release Audit Tool has been run on the
release,
>> and
>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>> missing licenses were found with the exceptions listed
in
>> the
>>>>>>>>>> exclusion section of the "rat-maven-plugin" configuration
>> in
>>>>> http://
>>>>>>>>>> svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.0.0/pom.xml
.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In accordance with http://www.apache.org/foundation/
>>>>>>>>>> voting.html#ReleaseVotes , three +1 votes will be
>> sufficient
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> approve the release for publication. While it is
not
>> possible
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> veto a release, the vote will remain open for the
standard
>> 3
>>>>> day
>>>>>>>>>> period (ending at 23:59 EST on Friday 8/24) in order
to
>> allow
>>>>>>>>>> people to thoroughly review the release and perform
>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>> additional testing they desire and raise any concerns
or
>>>>> objections.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A vote of "+1" means you approve of the release for
>>>>> publication,
>>>>>>>>>> "-1" means you do not approve, and a "+0" or "-0"
means
>> you
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> neutral.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance for your diligence in helping to
ensure
>> that
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> quality of the OpenJPA 1.0.0 release reflects the
high
>> quality
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> all of its contributors!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Patrick Linskey
>>>>>>> 202 669 5907
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Patrick Linskey
>>>>> 202 669 5907
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Linskey
>> 202 669 5907
>>


Mime
View raw message