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 209.85.220.11 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=kQbG98QNEP19U7dQ60GnKXQUoMNxMtaxcRfKqmM0CsYGG9CRN6dMGnVshtERS9pJXx
         iG8umrCe5DpfjvHlNhwizetdOwEhyVyWsrZph1TfcSGPFwXF3ZfNtWgyZ8RGo6nmM56/
         C287uvxPfNnaLTj8ETHRaRQDq7xBTFI9qSzwQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <89c0c52c0902031420h55082886geb82d154592f3a1f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49888ED5.3060301@apache.org>
	 <72c1350f0902031102m6fb93b7cr4ed0c16bed628dc6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4988A2F1.4050509@apache.org>
	 <89c0c52c0902031248n1697acd1jf1d4bb589082e45d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <72c1350f0902031405k5b772dd8ne0d5ea5ebcf161e1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <89c0c52c0902031420h55082886geb82d154592f3a1f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:34:18 -0600
Message-ID: <72c1350f0902040834rb056844u65b86d665d57fc9d@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Plans for a OpenJPA 1.2.1 release?
From: Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5bb71f6b60c04621a5b83

--001636c5bb71f6b60c04621a5b83
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks for the explanation, I haven't been following the OpenEJB mailing
list so it was a surprise to me. In case they are related to the
1.2.1-SNAPSHOT I'll hold off on the release (at least until we're
exonerated).

-mike

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> IIRC, the TCK failures were actually in the EJB bucket, not the JPA bucket.
> That's why OpenEJB was hitting the problem and we weren't.
>
> Kevin
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I ran the TCK in isolation earlier today and there are no failures that
> I'm
> > aware of. I'm using the tck configuration from the openjpa source tree in
> > case that makes a difference.
> >
> > Donald, which svn revision do you have that sees the TCK issues?
> > OPENJPA-872
> > should have been fixed in revision728758 under OPENJPA-838..
> >
> > -mike
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I thought the TCK failures were tracked down to OPENJPA-872 and that
> has
> > > been resolved.  Thus, a 1.2.1 release is what the "doctor" was asking
> > > for...
> > >
> > > Kevin
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, looks like we may still have 2 TCK tests that are failing
> > with
> > > > OpenJPA 1.2.0/1.2.1-SNAPSHOT, that pass if we rollback to the 1.0.3
> > > release,
> > > > so let's put creating that branch on hold until we can further debug
> > the
> > > > failures we are seeing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Donald
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael Dick wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Donald,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm looking into this at the moment. I need to do some JIRA issue
> > > cleanup
> > > >> (I
> > > >> suspect) but I'll try to get the branch created later tonight.
> > > >>
> > > >> -mike
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>  Have we started planning a OpenJPA 1.2.1 release?  The upcoming
> > > Geronimo
> > > >>> 2.1.4 release would like to include an updated OpenJPA release due
> to
> > > the
> > > >>> issue mentioned below.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Donald
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -------- Original Message --------
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Jan 27, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  Do we need to upgrade to OpenJPA 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT and approach the
> > > OpenJPA
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> team for a release, based on the resolution in -
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-872
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>  Yes. I'm in the process of sending them a note...
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Looks like we could consider using <property
> > > >>> name="openjpa.jdbc.QuerySQLCache" value="false"/> to work-around
> the
> > > >>> problem, if necessary.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --kevan
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

--001636c5bb71f6b60c04621a5b83--