openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Dick" <michael.d.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RESCIND VOTE] Approve OpenJPA 1.0.0 release (2nd attempt)
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:23:23 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message