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 michael.d.dick@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.198.238 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=qbWPBF/RJThAiGGQHtFIL6I9qU9vutrqpSbedIpoLqXj771s0PaEq22PKmtX7CAaUu
         zTW3QFQXrLsa5rCE8EveiQ6yaOR3F18PFx7XxsAWrZ+cBKFlsuI4g0Vebl7Z4ZeQAJ8i
         5mzCO16aSsIJkSVSceZQnryZyUVcWhH42w0G8=
Message-ID: <72c1350f0808040652q709423dbr8d308c20590484e3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:52:34 -0500
From: "Michael Dick" <michael.d.dick@gmail.com>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Approve OpenJPA 1.2.0 release
In-Reply-To: <1217795215475-667447.post@n2.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_30261_11321793.1217857954072"
References: <72c1350f0808010939v3c3ec13ag2a0fe53cd00c0f52@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1217695282668-666095.post@n2.nabble.com>
	 <89c0c52c0808021150y21680c89w15fb965fffe80a72@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1217795215475-667447.post@n2.nabble.com>

------=_Part_30261_11321793.1217857954072
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

For the time being I've targetted OPENJPA-628 for 1.2.1. If there are
additional far reaching concerns we can address them in the JIRA issue and
decide whether it needs to be re-targetted.

-mike

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Pinaki Poddar <ppoddar@apache.org> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>

------=_Part_30261_11321793.1217857954072--