You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ode.apache.org by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org> on 2009/02/09 18:09:10 UTC
Release(s)
Hi ODEers,
I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me know if
you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in a
couple of days.
WAR distro:
http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
JBI distro:
http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
Thanks,
Matthieu
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Alexis Midon <mi...@intalio.com>.
I like the idea of using numbers only. Why bother with qualifiers. and if
it's solve a voting issue as a bonus, that's great.
Only what's in the apache official repo should be considered as official
distributions.
Alexis
2009/2/19 Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>
> We're reproducing the following discussion:
>
> http://markmail.org/thread/o73bu7mo2tqnrv2p
>
> I don't really have a strong opinion on release names but I should point
> out
> that:
>
> 1. RCs aren't fully kosher (because either you re-vote or you release
> something that wasn't what people voted on, see above thread).
> 2. It's a good idea to use increasing numbers.
>
> Hence the original 1.3.1 proposition :)
>
> Matthieu
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It
> should
> >> have been a RC1.
> >>
> >> I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without qualifiers
> if
> >> they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released" but
> >> there's
> >> no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
> >
> >
> > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking it's the
> > official 1.3 release?
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1 is
> "What
> >> happened to 1.3?"
> >
> >
> > 1.3.1
> > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing with
> > pulled-back release 1.3.
> >
> > 1.3
> > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
> >
> > Assaf
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> alex
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
> >> matthieu.riou@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to be a
> >> new
> >> >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence
> >> 1.3.1.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially released
> >> so
> >> >> where's the harm?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first chance
> >> of
> >> > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you running?"
> and
> >> the
> >> > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are cheap.
> >> >
> >> > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML about
> >> 1.2
> >> > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back then
> was
> >> that
> >> > it was "wrong" :)
> >> >
> >> > Matthieu
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> alex
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
We're reproducing the following discussion:
http://markmail.org/thread/o73bu7mo2tqnrv2p
I don't really have a strong opinion on release names but I should point out
that:
1. RCs aren't fully kosher (because either you re-vote or you release
something that wasn't what people voted on, see above thread).
2. It's a good idea to use increasing numbers.
Hence the original 1.3.1 proposition :)
Matthieu
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>wrote:
>
>> The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It should
>> have been a RC1.
>>
>> I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without qualifiers if
>> they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released" but
>> there's
>> no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
>
>
> The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking it's the
> official 1.3 release?
>
>
>>
>>
>> The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1 is "What
>> happened to 1.3?"
>
>
> 1.3.1
> * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing with
> pulled-back release 1.3.
>
> 1.3
> * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
>
> Assaf
>
>
>>
>>
>> alex
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
>> matthieu.riou@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to be a
>> new
>> >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence
>> 1.3.1.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially released
>> so
>> >> where's the harm?
>> >>
>> >
>> > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first chance
>> of
>> > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you running?" and
>> the
>> > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are cheap.
>> >
>> > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML about
>> 1.2
>> > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back then was
>> that
>> > it was "wrong" :)
>> >
>> > Matthieu
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> alex
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com>.
>
> > the
>> > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are cheap.
>> > >
>> > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML about
>> 1.2
>> > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back then
>> was
>> > that
>> > > it was "wrong" :)
>> > >
>> > > Matthieu
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> alex
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
> I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although today our
> testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to work,
> still trying to diagnose :(
>
No ODE problem here so far, our XSL (which worked on previous versions), had
incorrect xsl:output tags. So +1 for 1.3xx release
-cj.
AW: Release(s)
Posted by Ig...@empolis.com.
Hi,
> > [...]
> > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>...
>
> It's the same here for the 2.0-beta: we really need something official
(-:
Yes indeed.
We plan to release the first SMILA milestone on March 23rd, 2009.
But if we do not have ODE 2.0-beta in let's say next 10 days, than we
will be forced to temporarily drop ODE and implement some very primitive
replacement for it - which is something that we definitely do not want
to do.
So guys please help us by releasing 2.0-beta soon.
BTW: Swordfish (http://www.eclipse.org/swordfish/) project is also
waiting for 2.0-beta.
Best Regards
Igor
http://www.eclipse.org/smila
RE: Release(s)
Posted by Ju...@empolis.com.
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ciaran [mailto:ciaranj@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:01 PM
> To: dev@ode.apache.org
> Cc: matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Release(s)
>
> [...]
> I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>...
It's the same here for the 2.0-beta: we really need something official (-:
Cheers,
Juergen
--
http://www.eclipse.org/smila
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > In my scenario there's an RC, a separate entity from the final release.
> And
> > it may have passed through the release process and voted on. Or not. I
> > didn't specify because it doesn't seem to matter.
> >
> > So "not kosher" seems to me like inventing one very specific process and
> > using it as strawman to argue that RC is problematic by nature.
> >
>
> Of course, I'm not disputing that. The problem is with a very specific way
> to handle RCs (vote on it and then just release from the same tag/branch
> without re-voting) not with RCs in general.
>
> Matthieu
>
>
> >
> > Assaf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Matthie
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Assaf
> >>
> >> [1] <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate
> >
> >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ...
> >>>
> >>> Matthieu
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Milinda
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran < <ci...@gmail.com>
> >>> ciaranj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin < <ar...@intalio.com>
> >>> arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <<
> boisvert@intalio.com>
> >>> boisvert@intalio.com>
> >>> > > > wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3.
> >>> It
> >>> > > should
> >>> > > > > have been a RC1.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without
> >>> > qualifiers
> >>> > > > if
> >>> > > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been
> "released"
> >>> but
> >>> > > > > there's
> >>> > > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking
> >>> it's
> >>> > the
> >>> > > > official 1.3 release?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > The first question many people will have when they download
> 1.3.1
> >>> is
> >>> > > > "What
> >>> > > > > happened to 1.3?"
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > 1.3.1
> >>> > > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing
> >>> with
> >>> > > > pulled-back release 1.3.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > 1.3
> >>> > > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Assaf
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > alex
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
> >>> > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >wrote:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <
> >>> > <bo...@intalio.com>boisvert@intalio.com
> >>> > > > > >wrote:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
> >>> > > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >wrote:
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
> >>> > > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>
> >>> > > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's
> going
> >>> to
> >>> > be
> >>> > > a
> >>> > > > > new
> >>> > > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion.
> >>> Hence
> >>> > > > > 1.3.1.
> >>> > > > > >>>
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially
> >>> > > released
> >>> > > > so
> >>> > > > > >> where's the harm?
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a
> first
> >>> > > chance
> >>> > > > of
> >>> > > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you
> >>> > running?"
> >>> > > > and
> >>> > > > > the
> >>> > > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are
> >>> cheap.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this
> ML
> >>> > about
> >>> > > > 1.2
> >>> > > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus
> back
> >>> then
> >>> > > was
> >>> > > > > that
> >>> > > > > > it was "wrong" :)
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Matthieu
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >> alex
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although
> today
> >>> our
> >>> > > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to
> >>> work,
> >>> > > still trying to diagnose :(
> >>> > > - Cj.
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > <http://mpathirage.com>http://mpathirage.com
> >>> > <http://wso2.org>http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers"
> >>> > <http://wsaxc.blogspot.com>http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services
> >>> With Axis2/C"
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
Just so you're aware, it looks like there are still file handles being left
open on the 1.xx branch, WSDL files aren't being deep-deleted properly (when
under heavy deployment and un-deploment load.) We're investigating
currently, but haven't isolated the issue just yet :(
- C.
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> In my scenario there's an RC, a separate entity from the final release. And
> it may have passed through the release process and voted on. Or not. I
> didn't specify because it doesn't seem to matter.
>
> So "not kosher" seems to me like inventing one very specific process and
> using it as strawman to argue that RC is problematic by nature.
>
Of course, I'm not disputing that. The problem is with a very specific way
to handle RCs (vote on it and then just release from the same tag/branch
without re-voting) not with RCs in general.
Matthieu
>
> Assaf
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthie
>
>
>>
>> Assaf
>>
>> [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ...
>>>
>>> Matthieu
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Milinda
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran < <ci...@gmail.com>
>>> ciaranj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin < <ar...@intalio.com>
>>> arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <<b...@intalio.com>
>>> boisvert@intalio.com>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3.
>>> It
>>> > > should
>>> > > > > have been a RC1.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without
>>> > qualifiers
>>> > > > if
>>> > > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released"
>>> but
>>> > > > > there's
>>> > > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking
>>> it's
>>> > the
>>> > > > official 1.3 release?
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1
>>> is
>>> > > > "What
>>> > > > > happened to 1.3?"
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1.3.1
>>> > > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing
>>> with
>>> > > > pulled-back release 1.3.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1.3
>>> > > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Assaf
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > alex
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
>>> > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <
>>> > <bo...@intalio.com>boisvert@intalio.com
>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
>>> > > > <ma...@gmail.com>matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going
>>> to
>>> > be
>>> > > a
>>> > > > > new
>>> > > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion.
>>> Hence
>>> > > > > 1.3.1.
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially
>>> > > released
>>> > > > so
>>> > > > > >> where's the harm?
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first
>>> > > chance
>>> > > > of
>>> > > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you
>>> > running?"
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are
>>> cheap.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML
>>> > about
>>> > > > 1.2
>>> > > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back
>>> then
>>> > > was
>>> > > > > that
>>> > > > > > it was "wrong" :)
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Matthieu
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> alex
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although today
>>> our
>>> > > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to
>>> work,
>>> > > still trying to diagnose :(
>>> > > - Cj.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > <http://mpathirage.com>http://mpathirage.com
>>> > <http://wso2.org>http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers"
>>> > <http://wsaxc.blogspot.com>http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services
>>> With Axis2/C"
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>.
On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>
> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Milinda Pathirage <
> milinda.pathirage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > According to my experience with Axis2 and Axis2/C releases, we
> first do the
> > branching and doing some RCs based on that branch. If users and
> developers
> > report bugs in RCs we fixed them and do another RC. Finally, if
> every one
> > happy about the latest RC we doing the release based on that. the
> axis2
> > release process is described here at
> > http://ws.apache.org/axis2/release-process.html. I think it's good
> if we
> > can
> > have unified release process like that for ODE. WDYT?
> >
>
> The problem here is around release candidates. When you choose to
> promote a
> RC to "final", either you have to re-vote on the new binaries that
> have been
> rebuilt (removing the RC from the binaries name) or what you release
> isn't
> necessarily exactly what people really voted on. The latter is
> problematic.
>
> You're voting on the final release, and part of the decision is
> based on the fact that, during its limited life, the RC did not
> attract any major issues. RCs do not have to be carbon copies of the
> final, just limiting the impact of changes as you go up the tiers of
> stability (alpha -> beta -> gamma/rc). So I don't see the problem
> here.
>
> Given where we are, I believe it only makes sense to release a 1.3.1
> at this point.
>
> Then we can discuss the optimal release process separately. In your
> above scenario, IIUC you don't vote on the RC. Meaning that you
> can't advertise it on the website, only to developers.
In my scenario there's an RC, a separate entity from the final
release. And it may have passed through the release process and voted
on. Or not. I didn't specify because it doesn't seem to matter.
So "not kosher" seems to me like inventing one very specific process
and using it as strawman to argue that RC is problematic by nature.
Assaf
>
>
> Matthie
>
>
> Assaf
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate
>
>
> The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ...
>
> Matthieu
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Milinda
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released
> 1.3. It
> > > should
> > > > > have been a RC1.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without
> > qualifiers
> > > > if
> > > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been
> "released" but
> > > > > there's
> > > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using,
> thinking it's
> > the
> > > > official 1.3 release?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The first question many people will have when they download
> 1.3.1 is
> > > > "What
> > > > > happened to 1.3?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1.3.1
> > > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove
> confusing with
> > > > pulled-back release 1.3.
> > > >
> > > > 1.3
> > > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
> > > >
> > > > Assaf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > alex
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
> > > matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <
> > boisvert@intalio.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
> > > > matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's
> going to
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > new
> > > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some
> confusion. Hence
> > > > > 1.3.1.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not
> officially
> > > released
> > > > so
> > > > > >> where's the harm?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a
> first
> > > chance
> > > > of
> > > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you
> > running?"
> > > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers
> are cheap.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on
> this ML
> > about
> > > > 1.2
> > > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus
> back then
> > > was
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it was "wrong" :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matthieu
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> alex
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although
> today our
> > > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used
> to work,
> > > still trying to diagnose :(
> > > - Cj.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://mpathirage.com
> > http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers"
> > http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services With Axis2/C"
> >
>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Milinda Pathirage <
>> milinda.pathirage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > According to my experience with Axis2 and Axis2/C releases, we first do
>> the
>> > branching and doing some RCs based on that branch. If users and
>> developers
>> > report bugs in RCs we fixed them and do another RC. Finally, if every
>> one
>> > happy about the latest RC we doing the release based on that. the axis2
>> > release process is described here at
>> > http://ws.apache.org/axis2/release-process.html. I think it's good if
>> we
>> > can
>> > have unified release process like that for ODE. WDYT?
>> >
>>
>> The problem here is around release candidates. When you choose to promote
>> a
>> RC to "final", either you have to re-vote on the new binaries that have
>> been
>> rebuilt (removing the RC from the binaries name) or what you release isn't
>> necessarily exactly what people really voted on. The latter is
>> problematic.
>
>
> You're voting on the final release, and part of the decision is based on
> the fact that, during its limited life, the RC did not attract any major
> issues. RCs do not have to be carbon copies of the final, just limiting the
> impact of changes as you go up the tiers of stability (alpha -> beta ->
> gamma/rc). So I don't see the problem here.
>
Given where we are, I believe it only makes sense to release a 1.3.1 at this
point.
Then we can discuss the optimal release process separately. In your above
scenario, IIUC you don't vote on the RC. Meaning that you can't advertise it
on the website, only to developers.
Matthieu
>
> Assaf
>
> [1]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate
>
>
>>
>> The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ...
>>
>> Matthieu
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Milinda
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <
>> boisvert@intalio.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It
>> > > should
>> > > > > have been a RC1.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without
>> > qualifiers
>> > > > if
>> > > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released"
>> but
>> > > > > there's
>> > > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking
>> it's
>> > the
>> > > > official 1.3 release?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1
>> is
>> > > > "What
>> > > > > happened to 1.3?"
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 1.3.1
>> > > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing
>> with
>> > > > pulled-back release 1.3.
>> > > >
>> > > > 1.3
>> > > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
>> > > >
>> > > > Assaf
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > alex
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
>> > > matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>> > > > > >wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <
>> > boisvert@intalio.com
>> > > > > >wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
>> > > > matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>> > > > > >wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going
>> to
>> > be
>> > > a
>> > > > > new
>> > > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion.
>> Hence
>> > > > > 1.3.1.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially
>> > > released
>> > > > so
>> > > > > >> where's the harm?
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first
>> > > chance
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you
>> > running?"
>> > > > and
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are
>> cheap.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML
>> > about
>> > > > 1.2
>> > > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back
>> then
>> > > was
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > it was "wrong" :)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Matthieu
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> alex
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although today
>> our
>> > > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to
>> work,
>> > > still trying to diagnose :(
>> > > - Cj.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://mpathirage.com
>> > http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers"
>> > http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services With Axis2/C"
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Milinda Pathirage <
> milinda.pathirage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > According to my experience with Axis2 and Axis2/C releases, we first do
> the
> > branching and doing some RCs based on that branch. If users and
> developers
> > report bugs in RCs we fixed them and do another RC. Finally, if every one
> > happy about the latest RC we doing the release based on that. the axis2
> > release process is described here at
> > http://ws.apache.org/axis2/release-process.html. I think it's good if we
> > can
> > have unified release process like that for ODE. WDYT?
> >
>
> The problem here is around release candidates. When you choose to promote a
> RC to "final", either you have to re-vote on the new binaries that have
> been
> rebuilt (removing the RC from the binaries name) or what you release isn't
> necessarily exactly what people really voted on. The latter is problematic.
You're voting on the final release, and part of the decision is based on the
fact that, during its limited life, the RC did not attract any major
issues. RCs do not have to be carbon copies of the final, just limiting the
impact of changes as you go up the tiers of stability (alpha -> beta ->
gamma/rc). So I don't see the problem here.
Assaf
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate
>
> The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ...
>
> Matthieu
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Milinda
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It
> > > should
> > > > > have been a RC1.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without
> > qualifiers
> > > > if
> > > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released"
> but
> > > > > there's
> > > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking it's
> > the
> > > > official 1.3 release?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1
> is
> > > > "What
> > > > > happened to 1.3?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1.3.1
> > > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing
> with
> > > > pulled-back release 1.3.
> > > >
> > > > 1.3
> > > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
> > > >
> > > > Assaf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > alex
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
> > > matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <
> > boisvert@intalio.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
> > > > matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > new
> > > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion.
> Hence
> > > > > 1.3.1.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially
> > > released
> > > > so
> > > > > >> where's the harm?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first
> > > chance
> > > > of
> > > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you
> > running?"
> > > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are
> cheap.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML
> > about
> > > > 1.2
> > > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back
> then
> > > was
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it was "wrong" :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matthieu
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> alex
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although today
> our
> > > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to
> work,
> > > still trying to diagnose :(
> > > - Cj.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://mpathirage.com
> > http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers"
> > http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services With Axis2/C"
> >
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Milinda Pathirage <
milinda.pathirage@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to my experience with Axis2 and Axis2/C releases, we first do the
> branching and doing some RCs based on that branch. If users and developers
> report bugs in RCs we fixed them and do another RC. Finally, if every one
> happy about the latest RC we doing the release based on that. the axis2
> release process is described here at
> http://ws.apache.org/axis2/release-process.html. I think it's good if we
> can
> have unified release process like that for ODE. WDYT?
>
The problem here is around release candidates. When you choose to promote a
RC to "final", either you have to re-vote on the new binaries that have been
rebuilt (removing the RC from the binaries name) or what you release isn't
necessarily exactly what people really voted on. The latter is problematic.
The former involves further delays, a heavier process, ...
Matthieu
>
> Thanks,
> Milinda
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It
> > should
> > > > have been a RC1.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without
> qualifiers
> > > if
> > > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released" but
> > > > there's
> > > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking it's
> the
> > > official 1.3 release?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1 is
> > > "What
> > > > happened to 1.3?"
> > >
> > >
> > > 1.3.1
> > > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing with
> > > pulled-back release 1.3.
> > >
> > > 1.3
> > > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
> > >
> > > Assaf
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
> > matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <
> boisvert@intalio.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
> > > matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to
> be
> > a
> > > > new
> > > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence
> > > > 1.3.1.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially
> > released
> > > so
> > > > >> where's the harm?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first
> > chance
> > > of
> > > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you
> running?"
> > > and
> > > > the
> > > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are cheap.
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML
> about
> > > 1.2
> > > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back then
> > was
> > > > that
> > > > > it was "wrong" :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthieu
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> alex
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although today our
> > testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to work,
> > still trying to diagnose :(
> > - Cj.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://mpathirage.com
> http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers"
> http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services With Axis2/C"
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Milinda Pathirage <mi...@gmail.com>.
According to my experience with Axis2 and Axis2/C releases, we first do the
branching and doing some RCs based on that branch. If users and developers
report bugs in RCs we fixed them and do another RC. Finally, if every one
happy about the latest RC we doing the release based on that. the axis2
release process is described here at
http://ws.apache.org/axis2/release-process.html. I think it's good if we can
have unified release process like that for ODE. WDYT?
Thanks,
Milinda
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It
> should
> > > have been a RC1.
> > >
> > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without qualifiers
> > if
> > > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released" but
> > > there's
> > > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
> >
> >
> > The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking it's the
> > official 1.3 release?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1 is
> > "What
> > > happened to 1.3?"
> >
> >
> > 1.3.1
> > * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing with
> > pulled-back release 1.3.
> >
> > 1.3
> > * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
> >
> > Assaf
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > alex
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
> matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
> > matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to be
> a
> > > new
> > > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence
> > > 1.3.1.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially
> released
> > so
> > > >> where's the harm?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first
> chance
> > of
> > > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you running?"
> > and
> > > the
> > > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are cheap.
> > > >
> > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML about
> > 1.2
> > > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back then
> was
> > > that
> > > > it was "wrong" :)
> > > >
> > > > Matthieu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> alex
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although today our
> testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to work,
> still trying to diagnose :(
> - Cj.
>
--
http://mpathirage.com
http://wso2.org "Oxygen for Web Service Developers"
http://wsaxc.blogspot.com "Web Services With Axis2/C"
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It should
> > have been a RC1.
> >
> > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without qualifiers
> if
> > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released" but
> > there's
> > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
>
>
> The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking it's the
> official 1.3 release?
>
>
> >
> >
> > The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1 is
> "What
> > happened to 1.3?"
>
>
> 1.3.1
> * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing with
> pulled-back release 1.3.
>
> 1.3
> * Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
>
> Assaf
>
>
> >
> >
> > alex
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <
> matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to be a
> > new
> > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence
> > 1.3.1.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially released
> so
> > >> where's the harm?
> > >>
> > >
> > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first chance
> of
> > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you running?"
> and
> > the
> > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are cheap.
> > >
> > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML about
> 1.2
> > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back then was
> > that
> > > it was "wrong" :)
> > >
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> alex
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
I don't mind as long as *something* is released <g>... although today our
testing has flagged up some issues around XSL in BPEL that used to work,
still trying to diagnose :(
- Cj.
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com> wrote:
> The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It should
> have been a RC1.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without qualifiers if
> they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released" but
> there's
> no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking it's the
official 1.3 release?
>
>
> The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1 is "What
> happened to 1.3?"
1.3.1
* Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing with
pulled-back release 1.3.
1.3
* Pulled back due to issue with packaging.
Assaf
>
>
> alex
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to be a
> new
> >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence
> 1.3.1.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially released so
> >> where's the harm?
> >>
> >
> > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first chance of
> > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you running?" and
> the
> > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are cheap.
> >
> > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML about 1.2
> > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back then was
> that
> > it was "wrong" :)
> >
> > Matthieu
> >
> >
> >>
> >> alex
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It should
have been a RC1.
I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without qualifiers if
they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released" but there's
no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc.
The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1 is "What
happened to 1.3?"
alex
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to be a new
>>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence 1.3.1.
>>>
>>
>> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially released so
>> where's the harm?
>>
>
> A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first chance of
> confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you running?" and the
> answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are cheap.
>
> I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML about 1.2
> or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back then was that
> it was "wrong" :)
>
> Matthieu
>
>
>>
>> alex
>>
>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>>>
>>
>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to be a new
>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence 1.3.1.
>>
>
> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially released so
> where's the harm?
>
A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first chance of
confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you running?" and the
answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are cheap.
I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML about 1.2 or
1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back then was that it
was "wrong" :)
Matthieu
>
> alex
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>>
>
> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to be a new
> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence 1.3.1.
>
I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially released so
where's the harm?
alex
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com> wrote:
> I would rank ODE-523 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-523> as
> highly desirable...
>
I just fixed it a bit earlier :)
>
> alex
>
> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
>
Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to be a new
version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence 1.3.1.
Matthieu
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> So given the few fixes that have been committed since those two potential
>> releases I would do the following:
>>
>> - Cut a new 1.3.1 release
>> - Cut a 2.0-beta2
>> - Start voting on those 2 releases so we can finally promote them as
>> official.
>>
>> Any objections or blockers?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matthieu
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > > FYI there are several issues that are currently affecting us, in
>> > order
>> > > of
>> > > > > least important first
>> > > > > i) The shipped eclipse .classpath files refer to invalid project
>> > names
>> > > (
>> > > > > can get a patch for this easily enough )
>> > > > > ii) The default .war file thats created doesn't have an empty
>> > > 'processes'
>> > > > > folder in the WEB-INF folder so when it first de-compresses it
>> > > > > refuses to start and we have to shut it down and manually create
>> the
>> > > > folder
>> > > > > ( again can patch this for you)
>> > > > > iii) When it does start up it complains about a missing table in
>> the
>> > DB
>> > > > > (ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION iirc)
>> > > > > iv) The WSDL exposed by the deployment services appears not to be
>> > > > > validating in any tool ( can get a patch for this, we raised this
>> > > > previously
>> > > > > as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-399 , but it still
>> > seems
>> > > > > wrong on our side, perhaps we're not understanding this!)
>> > > > > v) Rapid Deployments + Un-deployments appear to cause issues where
>> > > > folders
>> > > > > remain on the disk (deepDelete fails, similar to '
>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-482' but this seems to
>> be
>> > > > > affecting the .cbp file and the .wsdl . I *think* can see where
>> the
>> > > .cbp
>> > > > is
>> > > > > left open, around the processconf object getCBPInputStream, but
>> I"m
>> > not
>> > > > sure
>> > > > >
>> > > > As a follow up to this posting in case anyone is following, we've
>> fixed
>> > > and
>> > > > provided patches for issues ii, iv and v (ODE-522, ODE-517 and
>> ODE-521
>> > > > respectively). Issue i was a local issue with an old eclipse
>> install
>> > (my
>> > > > bad), and we're not too worried by issue iii as it only seems to be
>> a
>> > > > warning (although it seems strange to continuously warn on every
>> > statup?)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Great and thank you again for your patches.
>> >
>> > No problem, it was one of my team (Col) who worked on and submitted the
>> > patches for me, but we're keen to see ODE
>> > work well just as much ;)
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-523 to track
>> > issue
>> > > #3
>> > > (missing ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION table) since I think it's worth fixing
>> before
>> > > 1.3 is finalized.
>> >
>> > Ok, thanks :)
>> >
>> > - Cj
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
I would rank ODE-523 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-523> as
highly desirable...
alex
PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ?
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> So given the few fixes that have been committed since those two potential
> releases I would do the following:
>
> - Cut a new 1.3.1 release
> - Cut a 2.0-beta2
> - Start voting on those 2 releases so we can finally promote them as
> official.
>
> Any objections or blockers?
>
> Thanks,
> Matthieu
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > FYI there are several issues that are currently affecting us, in
> > order
> > > of
> > > > > least important first
> > > > > i) The shipped eclipse .classpath files refer to invalid project
> > names
> > > (
> > > > > can get a patch for this easily enough )
> > > > > ii) The default .war file thats created doesn't have an empty
> > > 'processes'
> > > > > folder in the WEB-INF folder so when it first de-compresses it
> > > > > refuses to start and we have to shut it down and manually create
> the
> > > > folder
> > > > > ( again can patch this for you)
> > > > > iii) When it does start up it complains about a missing table in
> the
> > DB
> > > > > (ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION iirc)
> > > > > iv) The WSDL exposed by the deployment services appears not to be
> > > > > validating in any tool ( can get a patch for this, we raised this
> > > > previously
> > > > > as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-399 , but it still
> > seems
> > > > > wrong on our side, perhaps we're not understanding this!)
> > > > > v) Rapid Deployments + Un-deployments appear to cause issues where
> > > > folders
> > > > > remain on the disk (deepDelete fails, similar to '
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-482' but this seems to
> be
> > > > > affecting the .cbp file and the .wsdl . I *think* can see where
> the
> > > .cbp
> > > > is
> > > > > left open, around the processconf object getCBPInputStream, but I"m
> > not
> > > > sure
> > > > >
> > > > As a follow up to this posting in case anyone is following, we've
> fixed
> > > and
> > > > provided patches for issues ii, iv and v (ODE-522, ODE-517 and
> ODE-521
> > > > respectively). Issue i was a local issue with an old eclipse install
> > (my
> > > > bad), and we're not too worried by issue iii as it only seems to be a
> > > > warning (although it seems strange to continuously warn on every
> > statup?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Great and thank you again for your patches.
> >
> > No problem, it was one of my team (Col) who worked on and submitted the
> > patches for me, but we're keen to see ODE
> > work well just as much ;)
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-523 to track
> > issue
> > > #3
> > > (missing ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION table) since I think it's worth fixing
> before
> > > 1.3 is finalized.
> >
> > Ok, thanks :)
> >
> > - Cj
> >
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi guys,
So given the few fixes that have been committed since those two potential
releases I would do the following:
- Cut a new 1.3.1 release
- Cut a 2.0-beta2
- Start voting on those 2 releases so we can finally promote them as
official.
Any objections or blockers?
Thanks,
Matthieu
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > FYI there are several issues that are currently affecting us, in
> order
> > of
> > > > least important first
> > > > i) The shipped eclipse .classpath files refer to invalid project
> names
> > (
> > > > can get a patch for this easily enough )
> > > > ii) The default .war file thats created doesn't have an empty
> > 'processes'
> > > > folder in the WEB-INF folder so when it first de-compresses it
> > > > refuses to start and we have to shut it down and manually create the
> > > folder
> > > > ( again can patch this for you)
> > > > iii) When it does start up it complains about a missing table in the
> DB
> > > > (ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION iirc)
> > > > iv) The WSDL exposed by the deployment services appears not to be
> > > > validating in any tool ( can get a patch for this, we raised this
> > > previously
> > > > as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-399 , but it still
> seems
> > > > wrong on our side, perhaps we're not understanding this!)
> > > > v) Rapid Deployments + Un-deployments appear to cause issues where
> > > folders
> > > > remain on the disk (deepDelete fails, similar to '
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-482' but this seems to be
> > > > affecting the .cbp file and the .wsdl . I *think* can see where the
> > .cbp
> > > is
> > > > left open, around the processconf object getCBPInputStream, but I"m
> not
> > > sure
> > > >
> > > As a follow up to this posting in case anyone is following, we've fixed
> > and
> > > provided patches for issues ii, iv and v (ODE-522, ODE-517 and ODE-521
> > > respectively). Issue i was a local issue with an old eclipse install
> (my
> > > bad), and we're not too worried by issue iii as it only seems to be a
> > > warning (although it seems strange to continuously warn on every
> statup?)
> >
> >
> > Great and thank you again for your patches.
>
> No problem, it was one of my team (Col) who worked on and submitted the
> patches for me, but we're keen to see ODE
> work well just as much ;)
>
>
> >
> >
> > I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-523 to track
> issue
> > #3
> > (missing ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION table) since I think it's worth fixing before
> > 1.3 is finalized.
>
> Ok, thanks :)
>
> - Cj
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > FYI there are several issues that are currently affecting us, in order
> of
> > > least important first
> > > i) The shipped eclipse .classpath files refer to invalid project names
> (
> > > can get a patch for this easily enough )
> > > ii) The default .war file thats created doesn't have an empty
> 'processes'
> > > folder in the WEB-INF folder so when it first de-compresses it
> > > refuses to start and we have to shut it down and manually create the
> > folder
> > > ( again can patch this for you)
> > > iii) When it does start up it complains about a missing table in the DB
> > > (ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION iirc)
> > > iv) The WSDL exposed by the deployment services appears not to be
> > > validating in any tool ( can get a patch for this, we raised this
> > previously
> > > as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-399 , but it still seems
> > > wrong on our side, perhaps we're not understanding this!)
> > > v) Rapid Deployments + Un-deployments appear to cause issues where
> > folders
> > > remain on the disk (deepDelete fails, similar to '
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-482' but this seems to be
> > > affecting the .cbp file and the .wsdl . I *think* can see where the
> .cbp
> > is
> > > left open, around the processconf object getCBPInputStream, but I"m not
> > sure
> > >
> > As a follow up to this posting in case anyone is following, we've fixed
> and
> > provided patches for issues ii, iv and v (ODE-522, ODE-517 and ODE-521
> > respectively). Issue i was a local issue with an old eclipse install (my
> > bad), and we're not too worried by issue iii as it only seems to be a
> > warning (although it seems strange to continuously warn on every statup?)
>
>
> Great and thank you again for your patches.
No problem, it was one of my team (Col) who worked on and submitted the
patches for me, but we're keen to see ODE
work well just as much ;)
>
>
> I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-523 to track issue
> #3
> (missing ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION table) since I think it's worth fixing before
> 1.3 is finalized.
Ok, thanks :)
- Cj
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > FYI there are several issues that are currently affecting us, in order of
> > least important first
> > i) The shipped eclipse .classpath files refer to invalid project names (
> > can get a patch for this easily enough )
> > ii) The default .war file thats created doesn't have an empty 'processes'
> > folder in the WEB-INF folder so when it first de-compresses it
> > refuses to start and we have to shut it down and manually create the
> folder
> > ( again can patch this for you)
> > iii) When it does start up it complains about a missing table in the DB
> > (ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION iirc)
> > iv) The WSDL exposed by the deployment services appears not to be
> > validating in any tool ( can get a patch for this, we raised this
> previously
> > as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-399 , but it still seems
> > wrong on our side, perhaps we're not understanding this!)
> > v) Rapid Deployments + Un-deployments appear to cause issues where
> folders
> > remain on the disk (deepDelete fails, similar to '
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-482' but this seems to be
> > affecting the .cbp file and the .wsdl . I *think* can see where the .cbp
> is
> > left open, around the processconf object getCBPInputStream, but I"m not
> sure
> >
> As a follow up to this posting in case anyone is following, we've fixed and
> provided patches for issues ii, iv and v (ODE-522, ODE-517 and ODE-521
> respectively). Issue i was a local issue with an old eclipse install (my
> bad), and we're not too worried by issue iii as it only seems to be a
> warning (although it seems strange to continuously warn on every statup?)
Great and thank you again for your patches.
I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-523 to track issue #3
(missing ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION table) since I think it's worth fixing before
1.3 is finalized.
alex
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com>.
> FYI there are several issues that are currently affecting us, in order of
> least important first
> i) The shipped eclipse .classpath files refer to invalid project names (
> can get a patch for this easily enough )
> ii) The default .war file thats created doesn't have an empty 'processes'
> folder in the WEB-INF folder so when it first de-compresses it
> refuses to start and we have to shut it down and manually create the folder
> ( again can patch this for you)
> iii) When it does start up it complains about a missing table in the DB
> (ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION iirc)
> iv) The WSDL exposed by the deployment services appears not to be
> validating in any tool ( can get a patch for this, we raised this previously
> as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-399 , but it still seems
> wrong on our side, perhaps we're not understanding this!)
> v) Rapid Deployments + Un-deployments appear to cause issues where folders
> remain on the disk (deepDelete fails, similar to '
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-482' but this seems to be
> affecting the .cbp file and the .wsdl . I *think* can see where the .cbp is
> left open, around the processconf object getCBPInputStream, but I"m not sure
>
As a follow up to this posting in case anyone is following, we've fixed and
provided patches for issues ii, iv and v (ODE-522, ODE-517 and ODE-521
respectively). Issue i was a local issue with an old eclipse install (my
bad), and we're not too worried by issue iii as it only seems to be a
warning (although it seems strange to continuously warn on every statup?)
Hope this helps, cheery-bye:)
- Cj
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> Hi ODEers,
>
> I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
> 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me know if
> you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in a
> couple of days.
>
> WAR distro:
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
Sorry I"m late on this thread, but we've recently been able to find some
time to test the current 1.x branch and have discovered some issues that
affect us :( Has the branch moved on since this cut (i.e. am I testing
something that is known to be unstable) or do I need to investigate the
provided wars and report back ?
FYI there are several issues that are currently affecting us, in order of
least important first
i) The shipped eclipse .classpath files refer to invalid project names (
can get a patch for this easily enough )
ii) The default .war file thats created doesn't have an empty 'processes'
folder in the WEB-INF folder so when it first de-compresses it
refuses to start and we have to shut it down and manually create the folder
( again can patch this for you)
iii) When it does start up it complains about a missing table in the DB
(ODE_SCHEMA_VERSION iirc)
iv) The WSDL exposed by the deployment services appears not to be validating
in any tool ( can get a patch for this, we raised this previously as
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-399 , but it still seems wrong on
our side, perhaps we're not understanding this!)
v) Rapid Deployments + Un-deployments appear to cause issues where folders
remain on the disk (deepDelete fails, similar to '
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-482' but this seems to be
affecting the .cbp file and the .wsdl . I *think* can see where the .cbp is
left open, around the processconf object getCBPInputStream, but I"m not sure
Thanks guys (and sorry)
- Cj.
>
> JBI distro:
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
>
> Thanks,
> Matthieu
>
RE: Release(s)
Posted by Ju...@empolis.com.
Hi Tammo,
> I'm not sure if your suggested patch is sufficient in all cases. If I
> understood Xerces' DOM model correctly, then it appears to be not
> thread-safe, not even for read-only access. In this case just forcing a
> pre-initialization of the lazy model is probably not enough.
>
> I'm currently thinking about cloning the element for those parts that
> may concurrently access the node. How does that sound?
As long as it's not an performance killer, any solution is fine for me (-;
> Is it possible to easily reproduce the problem in a test case? Or do
> you have some kind of testbed where you could test a patch?
Reproduction is a bit of a problem. The problem did not even occur in my own setup,
but some colleagues in the SMILA team seemed to get it quite regularly. I'll try to
set something up tomorrow.
Thanks,
Jürgen.
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jürgen,
I'm not sure if your suggested patch is sufficient in all cases. If I
understood Xerces' DOM model correctly, then it appears to be not
thread-safe, not even for read-only access. In this case just forcing a
pre-initialization of the lazy model is probably not enough.
I'm currently thinking about cloning the element for those parts that
may concurrently access the node. How does that sound?
Is it possible to easily reproduce the problem in a test case? Or do you
have some kind of testbed where you could test a patch?
Cheers,
Tammo
Juergen.Schumacher@empolis.com wrote:
> Hi Tammo,
>
>> Is the workaround the proposed fix mentioned in ODE-503?
>
> Basically yes, but I cannot do it immediately in SerializableElement,
> because I do not want to change the code released by ODE, but need to iterate
> separately over the process definitions after the deployment has finished.
> And it's a bit nasty to access them from outside the BpelServerImpl (:
>
> Cheers,
> Juergen.
>
>
>
--
Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de
RE: Release(s)
Posted by Ju...@empolis.com.
Hi Tammo,
> Is the workaround the proposed fix mentioned in ODE-503?
Basically yes, but I cannot do it immediately in SerializableElement,
because I do not want to change the code released by ODE, but need to iterate
separately over the process definitions after the deployment has finished.
And it's a bit nasty to access them from outside the BpelServerImpl (:
Cheers,
Juergen.
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jürgen,
Juergen.Schumacher@empolis.com wrote:
> though I'm not an ODE-dev: we are now using the 2.0-beta1 and I did not hear
> of any problems yet. However, it would be fine if the next beta/RC/final would
> include a fix for ODE-503. I have a workaround now, but it's not too pretty (-;
> Just ask me if you need more details or testing.
Is the workaround the proposed fix mentioned in ODE-503?
Best,
Tammo
--
Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de
RE: Release(s)
Posted by Ju...@empolis.com.
Hi,
Matthieu wrote:
> I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
> 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me know
> if you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in a
> couple of days.
though I'm not an ODE-dev: we are now using the 2.0-beta1 and I did not hear
of any problems yet. However, it would be fine if the next beta/RC/final would
include a fix for ODE-503. I have a workaround now, but it's not too pretty (-;
Just ask me if you need more details or testing.
Thanks!
Juergen.
--
http://www.eclipse.org/smila
Re: Release(s)
Posted by GaryMcWilliams <ga...@lagan.com>.
Matthieu, I did not create an issue as I was unsure whether it really was an
issue or not, so I posted this message to get some feedback.
I have created ODE-29
mriou wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:31 AM, GaryMcWilliams
> <ga...@lagan.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Matthieu Riou-5 wrote:
>> >
>> > A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait
>> a
>> > bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
>> > breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
>> >
>>
>>
>> http://www.nabble.com/Potential-looping-condition-under-Websphere-6.1-td22201600.html
>>
>> Is there a chance that the empty init() method can be added to the
>> release
>> so I can deploy the next ODE release without having to make my own code
>> changes?
>>
>> Does anyone object to the empty init() method?
>>
>
> Not at all, did you create a Jira issue for it? I can commit the empty
> init() method and this will be included in ODE 1.3.1 when we release it
> (once we're done with 2.0-beta2).
>
> Thanks,
> Matthieu
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Release%28s%29-tp21917289p22222322.html
>> Sent from the Apache Ode Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Release%28s%29-tp21917289p22241385.html
Sent from the Apache Ode Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:31 AM, GaryMcWilliams
<ga...@lagan.com>wrote:
>
>
> Matthieu Riou-5 wrote:
> >
> > A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait a
> > bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
> > breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
> >
>
>
> http://www.nabble.com/Potential-looping-condition-under-Websphere-6.1-td22201600.html
>
> Is there a chance that the empty init() method can be added to the release
> so I can deploy the next ODE release without having to make my own code
> changes?
>
> Does anyone object to the empty init() method?
>
Not at all, did you create a Jira issue for it? I can commit the empty
init() method and this will be included in ODE 1.3.1 when we release it
(once we're done with 2.0-beta2).
Thanks,
Matthieu
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Release%28s%29-tp21917289p22222322.html
> Sent from the Apache Ode Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by GaryMcWilliams <ga...@lagan.com>.
Matthieu Riou-5 wrote:
>
> A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait a
> bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
> breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
>
http://www.nabble.com/Potential-looping-condition-under-Websphere-6.1-td22201600.html
Is there a chance that the empty init() method can be added to the release
so I can deploy the next ODE release without having to make my own code
changes?
Does anyone object to the empty init() method?
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Release%28s%29-tp21917289p22222322.html
Sent from the Apache Ode Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Alexis Midon <mi...@intalio.com>.
I think we're able to reproduce the issue. I'm currently investigating it.
Alexis
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Midon <mi...@intalio.com> wrote:
> Provide us with a detailed log file so we can investigate too.
>
> Alexis
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fwiw it still doesn't work for us under load :( Still looks like
>> race-issues
>> in axis web service calls, and we're still seeing memory issues when
>> un/re-deploying :( We've been unable to produce a test-case of either
>> issues yet either .
>> - Cj.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:24 AM, GaryMcWilliams <
>> gary_mcwilliams@lagan.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Matthieu,
>> > >
>> > > did this get cut?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Not yet, a couple of lat minute issues prevented me from cutting it last
>> > week. I'm hopeful for this week.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Matthieu
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Matthieu Riou-5 wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Everything that was pending looks cleared for 1.3.1. I'll probably
>> cut
>> > > the
>> > > > release tomorrow unless someone stops me.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > > Matthieu
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Matthieu Riou
>> > > > <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Darn, it should have read 2.0-beta2.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Matthieu Riou
>> > > >> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll
>> > wait
>> > > >>> a
>> > > >>> bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue
>> (it's
>> > > >>> breaking some test cases at this point and responses might
>> change).
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Cheers,
>> > > >>> Matthieu
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou
>> > > >>> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>> Hi ODEers,
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch
>> and
>> > > >>>> 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me
>> > know
>> > > >>>> if
>> > > >>>> you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes
>> in
>> > a
>> > > >>>> couple of days.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> WAR distro:
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > >
>> >
>> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
>> <
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
>> >
>> > <
>> >
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
>> > >
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
>> > > >
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> JBI distro:
>> > > >>>>
>> > >
>> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
>> <
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
>> >
>> > <
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
>> > >
>> > > <
>> >
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
>> > > >
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Thanks,
>> > > >>>> Matthieu
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > View this message in context:
>> > > http://www.nabble.com/Release%28s%29-tp21917289p22413043.html
>> > > Sent from the Apache Ode Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Alexis Midon <mi...@intalio.com>.
Provide us with a detailed log file so we can investigate too.
Alexis
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fwiw it still doesn't work for us under load :( Still looks like
> race-issues
> in axis web service calls, and we're still seeing memory issues when
> un/re-deploying :( We've been unable to produce a test-case of either
> issues yet either .
> - Cj.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:24 AM, GaryMcWilliams <
> gary_mcwilliams@lagan.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Matthieu,
> > >
> > > did this get cut?
> > >
> >
> > Not yet, a couple of lat minute issues prevented me from cutting it last
> > week. I'm hopeful for this week.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Matthieu
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Matthieu Riou-5 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Everything that was pending looks cleared for 1.3.1. I'll probably
> cut
> > > the
> > > > release tomorrow unless someone stops me.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Matthieu
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Matthieu Riou
> > > > <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Darn, it should have read 2.0-beta2.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Matthieu Riou
> > > >> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll
> > wait
> > > >>> a
> > > >>> bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue
> (it's
> > > >>> breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers,
> > > >>> Matthieu
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou
> > > >>> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hi ODEers,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch
> and
> > > >>>> 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me
> > know
> > > >>>> if
> > > >>>> you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes
> in
> > a
> > > >>>> couple of days.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> WAR distro:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > >
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
> <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> >
> > <
> >
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> > >
> > > <
> > >
> >
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> > > >
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> JBI distro:
> > > >>>>
> > >
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> >
> > <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> > >
> > > <
> >
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> > > >
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Matthieu
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View this message in context:
> > > http://www.nabble.com/Release%28s%29-tp21917289p22413043.html
> > > Sent from the Apache Ode Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com>.
Fwiw it still doesn't work for us under load :( Still looks like race-issues
in axis web service calls, and we're still seeing memory issues when
un/re-deploying :( We've been unable to produce a test-case of either
issues yet either .
- Cj.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:24 AM, GaryMcWilliams <gary_mcwilliams@lagan.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > Matthieu,
> >
> > did this get cut?
> >
>
> Not yet, a couple of lat minute issues prevented me from cutting it last
> week. I'm hopeful for this week.
>
> Cheers,
> Matthieu
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Matthieu Riou-5 wrote:
> > >
> > > Everything that was pending looks cleared for 1.3.1. I'll probably cut
> > the
> > > release tomorrow unless someone stops me.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Matthieu Riou
> > > <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> > >
> > >> Darn, it should have read 2.0-beta2.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Matthieu Riou
> > >> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll
> wait
> > >>> a
> > >>> bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
> > >>> breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Matthieu
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou
> > >>> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi ODEers,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
> > >>>> 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me
> know
> > >>>> if
> > >>>> you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in
> a
> > >>>> couple of days.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> WAR distro:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
> <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> >
> > <
> >
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >>>> JBI distro:
> > >>>>
> > http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> >
> > <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Matthieu
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://www.nabble.com/Release%28s%29-tp21917289p22413043.html
> > Sent from the Apache Ode Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:24 AM, GaryMcWilliams <ga...@lagan.com>wrote:
>
> Matthieu,
>
> did this get cut?
>
Not yet, a couple of lat minute issues prevented me from cutting it last
week. I'm hopeful for this week.
Cheers,
Matthieu
>
>
>
> Matthieu Riou-5 wrote:
> >
> > Everything that was pending looks cleared for 1.3.1. I'll probably cut
> the
> > release tomorrow unless someone stops me.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Matthieu
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Matthieu Riou
> > <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> >
> >> Darn, it should have read 2.0-beta2.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Matthieu Riou
> >> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> >>
> >>> A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait
> >>> a
> >>> bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
> >>> breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Matthieu
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou
> >>> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi ODEers,
> >>>>
> >>>> I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
> >>>> 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me know
> >>>> if
> >>>> you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in a
> >>>> couple of days.
> >>>>
> >>>> WAR distro:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
> <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> JBI distro:
> >>>>
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Matthieu
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Release%28s%29-tp21917289p22413043.html
> Sent from the Apache Ode Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by GaryMcWilliams <ga...@lagan.com>.
Matthieu,
did this get cut?
Matthieu Riou-5 wrote:
>
> Everything that was pending looks cleared for 1.3.1. I'll probably cut the
> release tomorrow unless someone stops me.
>
> Cheers,
> Matthieu
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Matthieu Riou
> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
>
>> Darn, it should have read 2.0-beta2.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Matthieu Riou
>> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
>>
>>> A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait
>>> a
>>> bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
>>> breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Matthieu
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou
>>> <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi ODEers,
>>>>
>>>> I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
>>>> 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me know
>>>> if
>>>> you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in a
>>>> couple of days.
>>>>
>>>> WAR distro:
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
>>>>
>>>> JBI distro:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Matthieu
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Release%28s%29-tp21917289p22413043.html
Sent from the Apache Ode Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>.
Everything that was pending looks cleared for 1.3.1. I'll probably cut the
release tomorrow unless someone stops me.
Cheers,
Matthieu
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> Darn, it should have read 2.0-beta2.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
>
>> A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait a
>> bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
>> breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Matthieu
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi ODEers,
>>>
>>> I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
>>> 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me know if
>>> you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in a
>>> couple of days.
>>>
>>> WAR distro:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
>>>
>>> JBI distro:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Matthieu
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>.
Darn, it should have read 2.0-beta2.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait a
> bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
> breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
>
> Cheers,
> Matthieu
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi ODEers,
>>
>> I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
>> 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me know if
>> you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in a
>> couple of days.
>>
>> WAR distro:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
>>
>> JBI distro:
>> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matthieu
>>
>
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Alexis Midon <mi...@intalio.com> wrote:
> from the top level directory of ODE, you can do:
> buildr ode:axis2-war:test
thank you :)
- Cj.
>
>
>
> Alexis
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait
> a
> > > bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
> > > breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Matthieu
> >
> > Hmmm bugrit, we should've tested our wsdl changes for you, sorry about
> > that,
> > just out of interest what is the command to run to do this (please tell
> me
> > its not ode:test) ;)
> > - Cj
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi ODEers,
> > > >
> > > > I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
> > > > 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me
> know
> > if
> > > > you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in
> a
> > > > couple of days.
> > > >
> > > > WAR distro:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
> <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> >
> > <
> >
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> > >
> > > <
> > >
> >
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > JBI distro:
> > > >
> > http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> >
> > <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> > >
> > > <
> >
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Matthieu
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Alexis Midon <mi...@intalio.com>.
from the top level directory of ODE, you can do:
buildr ode:axis2-war:test
Alexis
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org
> >wrote:
>
> > A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait a
> > bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
> > breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Matthieu
>
> Hmmm bugrit, we should've tested our wsdl changes for you, sorry about
> that,
> just out of interest what is the command to run to do this (please tell me
> its not ode:test) ;)
> - Cj
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi ODEers,
> > >
> > > I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
> > > 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me know
> if
> > > you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in a
> > > couple of days.
> > >
> > > WAR distro:
> > >
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
> <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> >
> > <
> >
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> > >
> > >
> > > JBI distro:
> > >
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> >
> > <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> >
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Ciaran <ci...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait a
> bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
> breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
>
> Cheers,
> Matthieu
Hmmm bugrit, we should've tested our wsdl changes for you, sorry about that,
just out of interest what is the command to run to do this (please tell me
its not ode:test) ;)
- Cj
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi ODEers,
> >
> > I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
> > 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me know if
> > you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in a
> > couple of days.
> >
> > WAR distro:
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
> <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/
> >
> >
> > JBI distro:
> > http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matthieu
> >
>
Re: Release(s)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>.
A quick update: I'm preparing to release 2.0-beta1. For 1.3.1 I'll wait a
bit until we completely solve the deployment service WSDL issue (it's
breaking some test cases at this point and responses might change).
Cheers,
Matthieu
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>wrote:
> Hi ODEers,
>
> I've cut two potential releases of ODE: 1.3 from the 1.x branch and
> 2.0-beta1 from the trunk. Please have a look, try them and let me know if
> you see anything wrong. If it looks good enough, I'll start votes in a
> couple of days.
>
> WAR distro:
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-war/1.3/>
>
> JBI distro:
> http://people.apache.org/~mriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Emriou/ode-repo/org/apache/ode/apache-ode-jbi/>
>
> Thanks,
> Matthieu
>