openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Dick <mik...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Upcoming 2.0 Milestone 3 release
Date Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:33:53 GMT
Hi Donald,
Thanks for all the work you've done to sort this out.

For OpenJPA I'd prefer openjpa-2.0.0-M3. I don't see how adding PFD2 or EA8
would help there. There is no proposed draft for OpenJPA, and EA sounds too
much like SNAPSHOT to me.

For the Geronimo jars I'm inclined to go with PFD2 (leaning towards the
latter), since there _is_ proposed final draft for the JPA spec. It also
conveys some meaning to other products which may include in the geronimo
spec but may not include OpenJPA.

Just my two cents,
-mike

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org> wrote:

> Once Iteration 11 is done this week, we plan on publishing a Milestone 3
>  release based on it next week.  In some email exchanges with Geir, it looks
> like we have a new Apache/Sun agreement that will let us release pre-final
> spec based artifacts to the normal release repos.  Given this, what does
> everyone think about the artifact naming?  Should we use the M3 designation
> for OpenJPA and the Geronimo JPA 2.0 spec?
>    openjpa-2.0.0-M3
>    geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-M3
> Or would it be better to name the api based on the spec level it
> implemented?
>    geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-PFD2
> Or just stay with the early access naming and drop the SNAPSHOT?
>    geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA8
>
> Thoughts?  I'd like to start the spec api release over on the Geronimo side
> no later than tomorrow, so we can hopefully have it published and ready to
> consume in the OpenJPA M3 branch early next week.
>
>
> -Donald
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message