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 209.85.198.227 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
        b=ViOW2zgz4pSm68p0YIu8Gm4M9R6obJGJDMPIN7RaqRwa2RRmDwfo6CUByHrVMMlrKV
         b39DnR05KVhWPSWgBt98ijDr/UtVNrgk3WVKVCrFe7wcLx0DcK22bFUVyX1JfXLA17D6
         IShgRuqg1MX30n29qNgrvgR3Vycs/qEXjqn1U=
Message-ID: <72c1350f0808041604j2672b3dv37d83d3fdc617793@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:04:39 -0500
From: "Michael Dick" <michael.d.dick@gmail.com>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Approve OpenJPA 1.2.0 release [RESCINDED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_24763_3766567.1217891079268"

------=_Part_24763_3766567.1217891079268
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi all,

We've found a couple of other issues with the 1.2.0 candidate and I'm
formally rescinding the vote to get those issues addressed.

I'm sorry for the false alarm and thanks for your diligence in testing this
release candidate.

-mike

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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_24763_3766567.1217891079268--