but can you explain your "far reaching" comment?
Apologies for sounding like a 'flip-flopper' during this election session:
My initial impression was that the change will impact adding elements to
any detached proxy collection. If that were the case then that is a serious
enough case to warranty a resolution. But on a second look, the impact seems
to be narrower.
Need more investigation before making any further (wrong) statement.
Regards --
Kevin Sutter wrote:
>
> I can agree that this problem (the r610922 regression) should be resolved,
> but since it has been there for quite some time, does it have to be
> resolved
> before we complete the 1.2.0 release? I've read through the Issue
> (OPENJPA-628) and I understand the basic problem, but can you explain your
> "far reaching" comment? I'm trying to figure out whether this is
> pervasive
> enough to warrant a re-spin.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Pinaki Poddar <ppoddar@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have earlier voted +1.
>> But now I will like to point out that 1.2.0 should be released *after*
>> either a) r610922 reverted
>> or b) the regression caused by 610922 (which is far reaching via
>> dynamically generated proxies) is resolved
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://n2.nabble.com/-VOTE--Approve-OpenJPA-1.2.0-release-tp664599p666095.html
>> Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/-VOTE--Approve-OpenJPA-1.2.0-release-tp664599p667447.html
Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|