*tested Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2013/11/7 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > testes the shadown part just one minute ago and seems not as bad as I > thought so repassing tcks and I'll commit it > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2013/11/7 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com>: >> If that is a blocking issue, I agree, but why not committing the fix. >> You have one, even if not perfect, it works in some cases. >> >> If definitely not a good patch, who can help fixing that, that was my main >> purpose. >> >> JLouis >> >> >> 2013/11/7 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >> >>> sure, go on. >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >________________________________ >>> > From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> >>> >To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org >>> >Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 21:41 >>> >Subject: Re: Time for 1.2.1? >>> > >>> > >>> >here are my two sense, cause it does not make sense to always wait for a >>> >release or always for a bug to fix. >>> >We depend on a lot of project, so I would prefer to release more even if >>> we >>> >identified some bugs we cannot fix at a time but at least we are able to >>> >release more than once a year. >>> > >>> >So, as nobody objected, I will start OWB release. If OWB-912 is not fully >>> >fixed, we can push a 1.2.2 soon because we have other things to fix/do. >>> > >>> >For OpenJPA, if the vote is not launched before Friday, we can fork as we >>> >did in the past and integrate the final release as soon as it gets out. >>> > >>> >Any thoughts/objections? >>> > >>> >JLouis >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >2013/11/6 David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> >>> > >>> >> On the OPENJPA-2335 note. Alex, Tim, Judah and all the 3ds guys on the >>> >> users@tomee list are saying they'll have to drop Apache TomEE from >>> their >>> >> product unless they get a release. They've been asking since July. >>> Seems >>> >> there cutoff is Friday. >>> >> >>> >> Looks like the most pragmatic way to make everyone happy is to do two >>> >> releases. One now and one again when OPENJPA-2335 is fixed and OpenJPA >>> >> 2.3.0 is released. Then there's no need to rush. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -David >>> >> >>> >> On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Well, TomEE is mostly blocked by OPENJPA-2335. This is a regression >>> >> which is in there since a few months and blows up many of my old apps >>> which >>> >> run fine with openjpa-2.2.2 and lower. I've committed a test (currently >>> >> failing of course) to the 2.3.x branch in openjpa. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > I'm mostly offline this week due to holding talks on W-JAX. >>> >> > >>> >> > LieGrue, >>> >> > strub >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >> ________________________________ >>> >> >> From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org >>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 6:49 >>> >> >> Subject: Re: Time for 1.2.1? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Hey, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Still there at least for the moment lol >>> >> >> Did not get news from Mark on the issue above. We discuss with Romain >>> >> but >>> >> >> we wanted another feedback. If someone else could have a look we >>> could >>> >> >> start the release today and have binaries for vote today. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks a lot >>> >> >> Jean Louis >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Le 6 nov. 2013 06:29, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a >>> >> écrit : >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> We have a regression (found on tomee list). I proposed a patch but >>> it >>> >> needs >>> >> >>> some review (Mark wanted to have a deeper look if I didnt >>> >> misunderstand). >>> >> >>> This is clearly blocking ATM :(. >>> >> >>> Le 6 nov. 2013 04:39, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a >>> >> écrit : >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> Jean-Louis fixed the issue and mentioned he would release today. >>> But >>> >> I >>> >> >>>> also know the "release" of his first baby boy is a few days overdue >>> >> :) I >>> >> >>>> suspect he's suddenly got quite busy. :) >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> If we don't hear from him tomorrow, I'll plan on jumping in for >>> him to >>> >> >>> get >>> >> >>>> the release started. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> -David >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> On Nov 4, 2013, at 12:36 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO < >>> jeano...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>>> wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>> Hi, >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Ok lemme at least try this morning. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Jean-Louis >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> 2013/11/4 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> We should fix the session destroy issue first. >>> >> >>>>>> Should be really easy. >>> >> >>>>>> Anyone likes to take over? >>> >> >>>>>> I have 3 conf talks to deliver this week, thus my time is a bit >>> >> short >>> >> >>>> this >>> >> >>>>>> week... >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> LieGrue, >>> >> >>>>>> strub >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >> >>>>>>> From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>>>>>> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org >>> >> >>>>>>> Cc: >>> >> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, 4 November 2013, 8:24 >>> >> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Time for 1.2.1? >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Lol >>> >> >>>>>>> I've been discussing with Mark for a while. We were waiting some >>> >> >>> fixes >>> >> >>>>>> but >>> >> >>>>>>> I should start the release early this week, maybe today or so. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Le 4 nov. 2013 03:09, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>>>>>> a écrit : >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Anyone have any objections if I roll a 1.2.1 release? >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> -David >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> -- >>> >> >>>>> Jean-Louis >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >-- >>> >Jean-Louis >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jean-Louis
