Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F3FB11271 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 19:30:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 86332 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2014 19:30:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 86283 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2014 19:30:09 -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 86272 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jun 2014 19:30:09 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 19:30:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of kwsutter@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.48] (HELO mail-qa0-f48.google.com) (209.85.216.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 19:30:06 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id i13so5668967qae.35 for ; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:29:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=OkbXozxRQZOlt4c+Tt/PyYvFCaFz+Ir6KVrCMzWdbHk=; b=UdhOKu0LAynakmZs7f8wzgvcWxoL8ROOvfOlPKwnrOX6SUsKgYF2nj8fnzfdh6KSMo Gzan+UWmjvm8EF9lv9QCjKaR1BhwKczrZaVo0xkXBqxDjftznTuD5SBd1A76stu78Y5H Qn1bqBVg1cCe4OBkdByHXACKZJ4Ebyk669MbvVsp9tE7bFTCu2fv1qg/ul7zqxHTgZEe KB2XKkb6NSJiAkstwzKyDR7/dXPQSQiZZYeNJZpfztAb5vdNyQw8tJhUt6q0KMmvwQdt lhptLDxmRmXOsfhgs/BA7ty4cs7nBKT6SPFZBRvDrSQVOsbvVOPat3HwoOodGSNX3Lrk 9vyQ== X-Received: by 10.224.30.71 with SMTP id t7mr20642508qac.30.1401823782204; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:29:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.48.199 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 12:29:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Kevin Sutter Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:29:22 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: release or not? To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0e530937bcc04faf3880c X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7bf0e530937bcc04faf3880c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sounds good. I'll reopen OPENJPA-2459, temporarily back out the Java 7 update, and commit. Still looking for resource to do the full release cycle... On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > I think best is to do next release from frunk with java 6 constraint then > branch a 2.4.x and re-upgrade trunk to 7. > Le 2 juin 2014 23:17, "Kevin Sutter" a =C3=A9crit : > > > As I look into this a bit, what is the best way to take out the Java 7 > > support from the 2.4.0 release and 2.4.x branch? Remove it from trunk > and > > then cut the release/branch? Or, cut the release/branch and then rever= t > > the Java 7 changes to build with Java 6 again? Any preference? > > > > Kevin > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO > > wrote: > > > > > hum, a part from Mark which is, yes, over loader I guess, dunno anyon= e > > else > > > in OpenJPA project that can help on that area. > > > > > > JLouis > > > > > > > > > 2014-06-02 17:01 GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter : > > > > > > > > Let's us know if and how we can help. > > > > > > > > Do you have OpenJPA karma to do the release process? :-) That's > what > > > > we're short on right now. We have a few people that have left > recently > > > and > > > > we have a few where their "day job" is getting in the way. So, > that's > > > the > > > > biggest inhibitor. I know Mark helped out on the last release we d= id > > > > (2.3.0), but I'm hearing that his day job is taking up mucho time a= s > > > > well... I'll dig around and see if we can get somebody to help out= . > > > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > > jeanouii@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Looks like a good plan to me. Relevant and perfectly fits what we > > need > > > > (in > > > > > TomEE at least) > > > > > Let's us know if and how we can help. > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-05-30 22:34 GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter : > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I see your point. Maybe it would be better to have 2.4.x > > with > > > > ASM > > > > > 5 > > > > > > to support Java 8 and then make trunk (2.5.0) be mainline > > development > > > > for > > > > > > JPA 2.1. Let's not worry about the work effort at this point, > > let's > > > > just > > > > > > discuss what's the right answer. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if we wanted to cut a 2.4.0 release, we'd have to revert t= he > > > build > > > > > > environment from Java 7 back to Java 6 for your needs. Is that > > > right? > > > > > Or, > > > > > > would the build of OpenJPA with Java 7 be okay? > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we would end up with... > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.3.x - ASM 4 with Java 6 (Pre-Java 8 usage) > > > > > > 2.4.x - ASM 5 with Java 6 (Useful for TomEE and maybe other > OpenJPA > > > > > > environments wishing to use Java 8) > > > > > > 2.5.0 - ASM 5 with Java 7 (trunk, mainline development for JPA > 2.1) > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this accurate? > > > > > > > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > > > > jeanouii@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hum, not easy then. > > > > > > > Creating a 2.3.1 with ASM 5 to support java 8 is quite a > > > significant > > > > > > change > > > > > > > to just change the latest digit, isn't it? > > > > > > > From OpenJPA point of view, it's just a dep update with some > > minor > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > as far as I understood, but I would maybe increment the minor > > digit > > > > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I agree with Romain. We can still fork in order to > remain > > > > Java > > > > > > EE 6 > > > > > > > compliant but of course, il would prefer to stick with Apache > > > OpenJPA > > > > > > > project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JLouis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-05-30 21:01 GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would be awesome to have a 2.4.0 still Java EE 6 > compliant, > > > > which > > > > > is > > > > > > > > mainly > > > > > > > > a maintenant release and target Java EE 7 (ie. JPA 2.1) for= a > > > 2.5.0 > > > > > or > > > > > > > 3.0, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 2.3.x stream is for JPA 2.0 level of functionality as > well > > as > > > > > Java > > > > > > 6. > > > > > > > > Any additional development and maintenance for JPA 2.0 and > > Java 6 > > > > > > should > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > targetted for this 2.3.x service stream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 2.4.0 (trunk) stream was meant for JPA 2.1 and Java 7. > > This > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > > > main stream for new development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > > > > > > > jeanouii@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Side note, we are WebProfile 1.0 (Java EE 6) so we cannot > > > > embedded > > > > > > Java > > > > > > > > EE > > > > > > > > > 7 API (because it's checked in the certification tests). > > > > > > > > > Would be awesome to have a 2.4.0 still Java EE 6 complian= t, > > > which > > > > > is > > > > > > > > mainly > > > > > > > > > a maintenant release and target Java EE 7 (ie. JPA 2.1) > for a > > > > 2.5.0 > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > 3.0, > > > > > > > > > dunno. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-05-30 17:27 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < > > > > jeanouii@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are waiting for the 2.4.0 to support Java 8. > > > > > > > > > > That's the only library missing to release (OpenWebBean= s, > > > XBean > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > > released last week). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-05-30 16:58 GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter < > > kwsutter@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Romain, > > > > > > > > > >> I can't speak for everybody on our dev list, but I don= 't > > > have > > > > > the > > > > > > > > cycles > > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > > >> create an OpenJPA release just for TomEE. It sounds > like > > we > > > > > might > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > >> more TomEE developers with OpenJPA karma to help out i= n > > this > > > > > > > regard... > > > > > > > > > >> Hint, hint... :-) > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Just curious, which stream are you looking for a relea= se > > > from? > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > 2.3.x > > > > > > > > > >> service stream, or the 2.4.0 trunk stream? If the > latter, > > > > then > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > >> realize > > > > > > > > > >> that this has been moved to require Java 7 in > preparation > > > for > > > > > JPA > > > > > > > 2.1 > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >> the rest of Java EE? Does that matter to you? If you > are > > > > > looking > > > > > > > > for a > > > > > > > > > >> 2.3.x release, then I still have two outstanding Infra > > JIRAs > > > > for > > > > > > > doing > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> nightly code and doc builds... > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Sorry that I can't be of more help, but we've had a fe= w > > > > OpenJPA > > > > > > > > > developers > > > > > > > > > >> move onto other "day jobs" and their time on OpenJPA h= as > > > > dropped > > > > > > off > > > > > > > > > >> considerably... Just too much work for the people > left... > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Kevin > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > > > > > > > >> rmannibucau@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi guys > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > we asked few weeks ago if we could hope a release fo= r > > > tomee > > > > > one > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > >> > said us to fork but as we took a bit more time to > > prepare > > > > the > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > >> > expected I ask again the question hoping something > > > changed: > > > > do > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > >> think an > > > > > > > > > >> > openjpa release is close? > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Our constraints are to let tomee be out in june so > > openjpa > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > >> should > > > > > > > > > >> > be on vote next week (+- few days). > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > wdyt? > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > > > > > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > > > > > > > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > > > > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > > > > > > > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > --047d7bf0e530937bcc04faf3880c--