Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of plinskey@gmail.com designates
 66.249.82.228 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:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=rjFBG1Ip1yNyDPk40S93ihhIEICEU9S4PU/HUSYlfQ0rhh8pwL/FQg/1kG2aJf9eIXoLaH88zz6aL2t0yIdIetLki00kyON4bFdu0U7TL+/Qr+1YJ/g32WheL26BiO9Xy/En8HBIck7Q1G2dA0PZoqqIVlOf9QVd2Lj2wBAqUyg=
Message-ID: <7262f25e0801311804j524c1cb4i8f1500fc966cba56@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:04:23 -0800
From: "Patrick Linskey" <plinskey@gmail.com>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release planning
In-Reply-To: <8C7F0A43-8473-4EEB-BF45-82B0A0E33A68@SUN.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <8C7F0A43-8473-4EEB-BF45-82B0A0E33A68@SUN.com>

> It looks like we're closing in on a 1.0.2 release.

Indeed. I'm planning to go through the unscheduled bugs tomorrow to
get a feeling for other issues that need to be in 1.0.2, and start the
process of trying to get to 1.0.2 readiness over the next weeks.

> There has been a
> request for an official release that contains the streaming LOB
> support, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-130 that is not
> yet completely documented and not ported to 1.0.2.

As ever, I'm hesitant about porting new features to maintenance
releases. It could be that parts of OPENJPA-130 are easy enough to
port in a harmless way, but until I see evidence of that, I'd vote no
about adding new features to 1.0.2. Instead, we might want to start
figuring out what needs to be done for 1.1.0.

> I'd also like to start thinking about JPA 2.0 work. How should we
> handle this? Seems that we would want to call the release that
> supports JPA 2.0 OpenJPA 2.0. When we do start working on this, should
> we use the trunk or a branch for it?

That does seem natural.

I think that I prefer making a branch, since we won't be able to
release JPA2 for some time anyways. Then, we can just track JPA2
compliance in that branch, and do other new feature / perf work in
trunk.
-Patrick

On Jan 31, 2008 12:10 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
> It looks like we're closing in on a 1.0.2 release. There has been a
> request for an official release that contains the streaming LOB
> support, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-130 that is not
> yet completely documented and not ported to 1.0.2.
>
> Are there other features in 1.1.0 that are urgently needed and that
> can be pulled into 1.0.2?
>
> I'd also like to start thinking about JPA 2.0 work. How should we
> handle this? Seems that we would want to call the release that
> supports JPA 2.0 OpenJPA 2.0. When we do start working on this, should
> we use the trunk or a branch for it?
>
> Craig
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>


-- 
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907