You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> on 2009/02/03 20:43:37 UTC
Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Hi,
I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
manager for this release.
Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
the http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please just
update that wiki page.
Thanks,
Jarek
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Agree and thanks for volunteering.
-Donald
Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
> manager for this release.
>
> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
> the http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please just
> update that wiki page.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
+1 Thanks for volunteering to be the release manager!
Lin
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
> manager for this release.
>
> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
> the http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please just
> update that wiki page.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Manu George <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1
Thanks
Manu
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
> manager for this release.
>
> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
> the http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please just
> update that wiki page.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by "Jay D. McHugh" <ja...@gmail.com>.
Those classes that Geronimo is looking for are OpenEJB classes.
Jay
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> The problem is with the version of ASM that is brought in when using a
> higher version of XBeans.
>
> OpenEJB is using a method that has been removed:
> org.objectweb.asm.ClassReader.accept
>
> And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that
> have been removed:
> LinkResolver
> UniqueDefaultLinkResolver
>
> Jay
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging.
>>
>> I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5. I
>> was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this
>> could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users.
>>
>> It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually
>> 3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375). However,
>> it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the
>> OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G. As a result ... we ended up
>> reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect
>> while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was
>> still resolved. That seems to be working and is perhaps the best
>> approach. I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions
>> in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server. Perhaps using the various xBean versions
>> is still the best thing to do here. I didn't realize that there were
>> core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
>>> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you
>>> use a version greater than 3.4.1.
>>>
>>> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used
>>> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
>>>
>>> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of
>>> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
>>>
>>> My feeling is that it won't though.
>>>
>>> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
>>> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
>>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
>>>
>>> Jay
>>>
>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
>>>> got it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
>>>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can
>>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
>>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
>>>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>>>>>> my vote for release manager!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>>>>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
>>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
>>>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>>>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
>>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new
>>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use
>>>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>>>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>.
We have done some test here with the tranql SQLServer 2000 and 2005 XA
connector (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4279), and TranQL
Informix XA connector (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4365),
both look good. So they should be ready to get into Geronimo 2.1.4.
Still trying with the TranQL connector for Oracle RAC - not easy to set up
the environment...
-Jack
2009/2/6 Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>
> Jay,
>
> Updating OpenEJB 3.0.1 to xbean 3.5 will require 2.0.3 and 2.1.4 to
> update the asm 3.1 library (and that will need even more changes). I
> know some other libs have deps on the asm lib so we might run into
> problems later on.
>
> How about we only upgrade xbean-naming to 3.5 first and leave other
> xbean dependencies on 3.4.1? If that doesn't work we can try 3.5 for
> everything.
>
> Jarek
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jay D. McHugh <ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > All of the 2.0.3 build issues are fixed.
> >
> > I will try building 2.0.3 with XBeans 3.5 now and let you all know what
> > happens.
> >
> > If it will build, then I might take a look to see whether I can figure
> > out what changes are necessary for OpenEJB 3.0.1 to use XBeans 3.5 too.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> >> The problem is with the version of ASM that is brought in when using a
> >> higher version of XBeans.
> >>
> >> OpenEJB is using a method that has been removed:
> >> org.objectweb.asm.ClassReader.accept
> >>
> >> And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that
> >> have been removed:
> >> LinkResolver
> >> UniqueDefaultLinkResolver
> >>
> >> Jay
> >>
> >> Joe Bohn wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging.
> >>>
> >>> I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5. I
> >>> was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this
> >>> could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users.
> >>>
> >>> It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually
> >>> 3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375). However,
> >>> it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the
> >>> OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G. As a result ... we ended up
> >>> reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect
> >>> while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was
> >>> still resolved. That seems to be working and is perhaps the best
> >>> approach. I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions
> >>> in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server. Perhaps using the various xBean versions
> >>> is still the best thing to do here. I didn't realize that there were
> >>> core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> >>>> Hey everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
> >>>> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when
> you
> >>>> use a version greater than 3.4.1.
> >>>>
> >>>> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be
> used
> >>>> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle
> of
> >>>> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
> >>>>
> >>>> My feeling is that it won't though.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
> >>>> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
> >>>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
> >>>>
> >>>> Jay
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
> >>>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible
> I
> >>>>> got it wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's
> 3.4.1
> >>>>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we
> can
> >>>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
> >>>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Joe
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Donald Woods wrote:
> >>>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
> >>>>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Donald
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
> >>>>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly
> have
> >>>>>>> my vote for release manager!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean
> references
> >>>>>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
> >>>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
> >>>>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
> >>>>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
> >>>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new
> >>>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to
> use
> >>>>>>> xBean 3.5.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Joe
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
> >>>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our
> users.
> >>>>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
> >>>>>>>> manager for this release.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few
> things
> >>>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I
> updated
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that
> _need_
> >>>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please
> >>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>> update that wiki page.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Jarek
> >>>>>>>>
> >
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
Jay,
Updating OpenEJB 3.0.1 to xbean 3.5 will require 2.0.3 and 2.1.4 to
update the asm 3.1 library (and that will need even more changes). I
know some other libs have deps on the asm lib so we might run into
problems later on.
How about we only upgrade xbean-naming to 3.5 first and leave other
xbean dependencies on 3.4.1? If that doesn't work we can try 3.5 for
everything.
Jarek
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jay D. McHugh <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All of the 2.0.3 build issues are fixed.
>
> I will try building 2.0.3 with XBeans 3.5 now and let you all know what
> happens.
>
> If it will build, then I might take a look to see whether I can figure
> out what changes are necessary for OpenEJB 3.0.1 to use XBeans 3.5 too.
>
> Jay
>
> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>> The problem is with the version of ASM that is brought in when using a
>> higher version of XBeans.
>>
>> OpenEJB is using a method that has been removed:
>> org.objectweb.asm.ClassReader.accept
>>
>> And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that
>> have been removed:
>> LinkResolver
>> UniqueDefaultLinkResolver
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging.
>>>
>>> I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5. I
>>> was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this
>>> could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users.
>>>
>>> It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually
>>> 3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375). However,
>>> it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the
>>> OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G. As a result ... we ended up
>>> reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect
>>> while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was
>>> still resolved. That seems to be working and is perhaps the best
>>> approach. I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions
>>> in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server. Perhaps using the various xBean versions
>>> is still the best thing to do here. I didn't realize that there were
>>> core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>
>>>> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
>>>> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you
>>>> use a version greater than 3.4.1.
>>>>
>>>> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used
>>>> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of
>>>> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
>>>>
>>>> My feeling is that it won't though.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
>>>> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
>>>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
>>>>
>>>> Jay
>>>>
>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
>>>>> got it wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
>>>>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can
>>>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
>>>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
>>>>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>>>>>>> my vote for release manager!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>>>>>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
>>>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
>>>>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>>>>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
>>>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new
>>>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use
>>>>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>>>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>>>>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>>>
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by "Jay D. McHugh" <ja...@gmail.com>.
Jarek,
I got spoiled by having the integration tests automatically run on 2.2.
I had hoped that the tests were broken before I started - but
unfortunately, it really was me that broke them.
I will find and fix the problem.
Thanks for alerting me to it.
Jay
Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Jay,
>
> Please run all tests including the integration tests before
> committing. Looks like deployment of some apps is failing after the
> recent changes, for example see:
> http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/2.0/20090204/logs-0200-tomcat/test.log
>
> Jarek
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jay D. McHugh <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All of the 2.0.3 build issues are fixed.
>>
>> I will try building 2.0.3 with XBeans 3.5 now and let you all know what
>> happens.
>>
>> If it will build, then I might take a look to see whether I can figure
>> out what changes are necessary for OpenEJB 3.0.1 to use XBeans 3.5 too.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>> The problem is with the version of ASM that is brought in when using a
>>> higher version of XBeans.
>>>
>>> OpenEJB is using a method that has been removed:
>>> org.objectweb.asm.ClassReader.accept
>>>
>>> And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that
>>> have been removed:
>>> LinkResolver
>>> UniqueDefaultLinkResolver
>>>
>>> Jay
>>>
>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5. I
>>>> was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this
>>>> could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually
>>>> 3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375). However,
>>>> it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the
>>>> OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G. As a result ... we ended up
>>>> reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect
>>>> while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was
>>>> still resolved. That seems to be working and is perhaps the best
>>>> approach. I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions
>>>> in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server. Perhaps using the various xBean versions
>>>> is still the best thing to do here. I didn't realize that there were
>>>> core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
>>>>> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you
>>>>> use a version greater than 3.4.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used
>>>>> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of
>>>>> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
>>>>>
>>>>> My feeling is that it won't though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
>>>>> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
>>>>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
>>>>>> got it wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
>>>>>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can
>>>>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
>>>>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
>>>>>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>>>>>>>> my vote for release manager!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>>>>>>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
>>>>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
>>>>>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>>>>>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
>>>>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new
>>>>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use
>>>>>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>>>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>>>>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>>>>>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>>>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>>>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>>>>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
Jay,
Please run all tests including the integration tests before
committing. Looks like deployment of some apps is failing after the
recent changes, for example see:
http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/2.0/20090204/logs-0200-tomcat/test.log
Jarek
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jay D. McHugh <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All of the 2.0.3 build issues are fixed.
>
> I will try building 2.0.3 with XBeans 3.5 now and let you all know what
> happens.
>
> If it will build, then I might take a look to see whether I can figure
> out what changes are necessary for OpenEJB 3.0.1 to use XBeans 3.5 too.
>
> Jay
>
> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>> The problem is with the version of ASM that is brought in when using a
>> higher version of XBeans.
>>
>> OpenEJB is using a method that has been removed:
>> org.objectweb.asm.ClassReader.accept
>>
>> And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that
>> have been removed:
>> LinkResolver
>> UniqueDefaultLinkResolver
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging.
>>>
>>> I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5. I
>>> was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this
>>> could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users.
>>>
>>> It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually
>>> 3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375). However,
>>> it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the
>>> OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G. As a result ... we ended up
>>> reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect
>>> while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was
>>> still resolved. That seems to be working and is perhaps the best
>>> approach. I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions
>>> in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server. Perhaps using the various xBean versions
>>> is still the best thing to do here. I didn't realize that there were
>>> core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>
>>>> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
>>>> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you
>>>> use a version greater than 3.4.1.
>>>>
>>>> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used
>>>> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of
>>>> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
>>>>
>>>> My feeling is that it won't though.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
>>>> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
>>>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
>>>>
>>>> Jay
>>>>
>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
>>>>> got it wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
>>>>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can
>>>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
>>>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
>>>>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>>>>>>> my vote for release manager!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>>>>>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
>>>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
>>>>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>>>>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
>>>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new
>>>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use
>>>>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>>>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>>>>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>>>
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by "Jay D. McHugh" <ja...@gmail.com>.
All of the 2.0.3 build issues are fixed.
I will try building 2.0.3 with XBeans 3.5 now and let you all know what
happens.
If it will build, then I might take a look to see whether I can figure
out what changes are necessary for OpenEJB 3.0.1 to use XBeans 3.5 too.
Jay
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> The problem is with the version of ASM that is brought in when using a
> higher version of XBeans.
>
> OpenEJB is using a method that has been removed:
> org.objectweb.asm.ClassReader.accept
>
> And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that
> have been removed:
> LinkResolver
> UniqueDefaultLinkResolver
>
> Jay
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging.
>>
>> I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5. I
>> was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this
>> could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users.
>>
>> It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually
>> 3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375). However,
>> it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the
>> OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G. As a result ... we ended up
>> reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect
>> while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was
>> still resolved. That seems to be working and is perhaps the best
>> approach. I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions
>> in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server. Perhaps using the various xBean versions
>> is still the best thing to do here. I didn't realize that there were
>> core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
>>> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you
>>> use a version greater than 3.4.1.
>>>
>>> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used
>>> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
>>>
>>> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of
>>> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
>>>
>>> My feeling is that it won't though.
>>>
>>> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
>>> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
>>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
>>>
>>> Jay
>>>
>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
>>>> got it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
>>>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can
>>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
>>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
>>>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>>>>>> my vote for release manager!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>>>>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
>>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
>>>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>>>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
>>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new
>>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use
>>>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>>>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by "Jay D. McHugh" <ja...@gmail.com>.
The problem is with the version of ASM that is brought in when using a
higher version of XBeans.
OpenEJB is using a method that has been removed:
org.objectweb.asm.ClassReader.accept
And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that
have been removed:
LinkResolver
UniqueDefaultLinkResolver
Jay
Joe Bohn wrote:
> Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging.
>
> I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5. I
> was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this
> could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users.
>
> It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually
> 3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375). However,
> it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the
> OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G. As a result ... we ended up
> reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect
> while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was
> still resolved. That seems to be working and is perhaps the best
> approach. I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions
> in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server. Perhaps using the various xBean versions
> is still the best thing to do here. I didn't realize that there were
> core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
>
> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
>> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you
>> use a version greater than 3.4.1.
>>
>> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used
>> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
>>
>> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of
>> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
>>
>> My feeling is that it won't though.
>>
>> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
>> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
>>> got it wrong.
>>>
>>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
>>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can
>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
>>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Donald
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>>>>> my vote for release manager!
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>>>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
>>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new
>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use
>>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging.
I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5. I
was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this
could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users.
It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually
3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375). However,
it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the
OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G. As a result ... we ended up
reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect
while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was
still resolved. That seems to be working and is perhaps the best
approach. I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions
in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server. Perhaps using the various xBean versions
is still the best thing to do here. I didn't realize that there were
core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1.
Thanks,
Joe
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you
> use a version greater than 3.4.1.
>
> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used
> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
>
> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of
> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
>
> My feeling is that it won't though.
>
> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
>
> Jay
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
>> got it wrong.
>>
>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can
>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>>>
>>>
>>> -Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>>>> my vote for release manager!
>>>>
>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new
>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use
>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>>>> the
>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>>>
>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please just
>>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by "Jay D. McHugh" <ja...@gmail.com>.
Hey everyone,
If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you
use a version greater than 3.4.1.
That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used
in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of
finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
My feeling is that it won't though.
Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
Jay
Joe Bohn wrote:
> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
> got it wrong.
>
> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can
> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
>
> Donald Woods wrote:
>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>>> my vote for release manager!
>>>
>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new
>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use
>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>>> the
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>>
>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please just
>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jarek
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
got it wrong.
It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can
convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
consistent in our 2.1 branch.
Thanks,
Joe
Donald Woods wrote:
> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x. Maybe
> you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>> my vote for release manager!
>>
>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new OpenJPA
>> release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use xBean 3.5.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>> manager for this release.
>>>
>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>> the
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>
>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please just
>>> update that wiki page.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jarek
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x. Maybe
you're thinking about OpenEJB?
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have my
> vote for release manager!
>
> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references to
> a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating branches/2.1
> and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In branches/2.1 we
> have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect) and 3.5 dependencies
> (naming). I've been told that this was due to OpenJPA dependencies on
> 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new OpenJPA release we will hopefully
> be able to update everything to use xBean 3.5.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>> manager for this release.
>>
>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>> the
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>
>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please just
>> update that wiki page.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jarek
>>
>
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have my
vote for release manager!
The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references to
a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating branches/2.1
and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In branches/2.1 we
have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect) and 3.5 dependencies
(naming). I've been told that this was due to OpenJPA dependencies on
3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new OpenJPA release we will hopefully
be able to update everything to use xBean 3.5.
Joe
Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
> manager for this release.
>
> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
> the http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please just
> update that wiki page.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>
Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
Posted by Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Jarek!
The JIRA list in the status page looks like pretty old (dated as "20081119 @
10:15 EST"). I can make it updated if this helps...
BTW, would someone please help to review and commit the fix for
GERONIMO-4525? One user wants to call the shell commands and check the exit
code accordingly. I hope this fix can go into the coming 2.1.4 release.
- Jack
2009/2/4 Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>
> Hi,
>
> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
> manager for this release.
>
> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
> the
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please just
> update that wiki page.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>