From dev-return-16040-apmail-openjpa-dev-archive=openjpa.apache.org@openjpa.apache.org Wed Apr 07 16:44:53 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 69485 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2010 16:44:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 7 Apr 2010 16:44:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 15135 invoked by uid 500); 7 Apr 2010 16:44:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 15101 invoked by uid 500); 7 Apr 2010 16:44:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 15092 invoked by uid 99); 7 Apr 2010 16:44:53 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:44:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=AWL,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of michael.d.dick@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.187 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.221.187] (HELO mail-qy0-f187.google.com) (209.85.221.187) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:44:46 +0000 Received: by qyk17 with SMTP id 17so297944qyk.9 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:44:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:received:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=dcbmo+O5HhG7+VE1IxxOjPPnc7VXpJjpH67GDnzUxz4=; b=ChOBIU5vkAmP9HDXg9Ka5cXvCRR59aIjBjJc+10diA0THIxcyZYyOdykNaRDnrsf+d yGE60VWIf25ckA0V8owLnRTNIlPX04x70tsfTYTIqZ0ikH9+e4xCdzo0vpFYj3MTDAT8 eVQ42+eeJ2Mu0SxJAigkWQFPrTe2qso867IMo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=Z50/EaQJsiJIfzmOTa+JsGob0qU3TBm7To2aLT+Y4zz+rh8+AvbbN9Yd2M6AaXaWex hTH5TWYMLh9RN9p+U/JUxH4qony0bN0wUOdO2f1Q0rhihCT/4u5nSf9d0WNXyLtq+nNi XBDJC3qoh1n9qEpCbuGPc/+uKJ/Vwk3YDDxGo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.41.197 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:44:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4B8FDFCB.9040404@apache.org> <4BBBEBDB.9060704@apache.org> From: Michael Dick Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:44:04 -0500 Received: by 10.229.96.82 with SMTP id g18mr928647qcn.82.1270658664405; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Upcoming OpenJPA 2.0.0 release plans To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364270fe54d20c0483a846c2 --0016364270fe54d20c0483a846c2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'll second OPENJPA-1604. I'd also vote for including OPENJPA-1609 which I think is a minor fix and the potential for regression is similarly small. I've also spoken with Jody and I think he has a fix nearly ready. -mike On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote: > I think we should try to get the basic OpenJPA 1.x compatibility issue > described in OpenJPA-1604 fixed in the base release. (There's a larger > issued defined in the JIRA, but if possible, that could/should be queued > for > a future release.) The lack of pessimistic locking may result in data > integrity issues in certain scenarios. > > -Jeremy > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > > > Just a reminder, we're less than a week away from a 2.0.0 release > > candidate..... Are there any show stoppers or critical bugs that anyone > > knows of that need to be addressed before we cut a RC build? > > > > > > -Donald > > > > > > On 3/4/10 11:28 AM, Donald Woods wrote: > > > As we're winding down the changes for the 2.0.0 release, I wanted to > > > alert everyone to the proposed release dates. > > > > > > 3/19 - Cut 2.0 branch > > > 4/12 - Start release candidate vote > > > > > > Once the branch is created, only changes approved by myself or Kevin > > > will be accepted into the branch. Trunk (probably renamed to 2.1) will > > > still be open for any changes. > > > > > > Also, please use this email thread to discuss any critical patches that > > > you would like to see considered for 2.0.0. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Donald > > > > > > --0016364270fe54d20c0483a846c2--