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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > >
