Time to create branches/2.0.0?

[Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>]

All,
I think it's time to create a 2.0.0 branch and start to rev-up the  
release build process. How do others feel?

 From that point on, only must-fix changes would be made to 2.0.0.  
Are there any pending changes? Or are we ready to go?

--kevan

Re: Time to create branches/2.0.0?

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

+1

I'll cut the branch tonight.   If there are objections we can always  
whack it.


On Aug 3, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

> All,
> I think it's time to create a 2.0.0 branch and start to rev-up the  
> release build process. How do others feel?
>
> From that point on, only must-fix changes would be made to 2.0.0.  
> Are there any pending changes? Or are we ready to go?
>
> --kevan
>

Re: Time to create branches/2.0.0?

[Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>]

I'm ok with a branch now.

Joe


Kevan Miller wrote:
> All,
> I think it's time to create a 2.0.0 branch and start to rev-up the 
> release build process. How do others feel?
> 
>  From that point on, only must-fix changes would be made to 2.0.0. Are 
> there any pending changes? Or are we ready to go?
> 
> --kevan
> 

Re: Time to create branches/2.0.0?

[Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>]

On Aug 3, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:

> IMHO, we should wait until we get all the artifacts currently being
> voted on actually released. We need to wait for them anyway.

I don't think we need to wait on them to create the branch. IMO, we  
don't need to wait on them to create a release candidate. We do need  
to wait on them to *release* the binary. I'm willing to let the the  
release manager decide how much parallelism he wants to take  
advantage of...

--kevan

Re: Time to create branches/2.0.0?

[Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>]

IMHO, we should wait until we get all the artifacts currently being
voted on actually released. We need to wait for them anyway.

Jarek

On 8/3/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
> I think it's time to create a 2.0.0 branch and start to rev-up the
> release build process. How do others feel?
>
>  From that point on, only must-fix changes would be made to 2.0.0.
> Are there any pending changes? Or are we ready to go?
>
> --kevan
>

Re: Time to create branches/2.0.0?

[Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>]

After discussing with Kevan and others, we wait until after 2.0.0 is released 
to pickup this fix.

-Donald

Donald Woods wrote:
> OpenJPA just fixed OPENJPA-295 in Rev562530, which is the fix for 
> GERONIMO-3363, which was an ArrayList thread safe problem when using 
> Daytrader for stress testing.
> 
> If everything feels this is important enough to include, I'll spin 
> another OpenJPA build and we can either wait until later tonight to cut 
> the 2.0.0 branch or I can just check the changes into 2.0 and 2.0.0 
> later tonight/tomorrow....
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> -Donald
> 
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>> All,
>> I think it's time to create a 2.0.0 branch and start to rev-up the 
>> release build process. How do others feel?
>>
>>  From that point on, only must-fix changes would be made to 2.0.0. Are 
>> there any pending changes? Or are we ready to go?
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>>

Re: Time to create branches/2.0.0?

[Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>]

OpenJPA just fixed OPENJPA-295 in Rev562530, which is the fix for 
GERONIMO-3363, which was an ArrayList thread safe problem when using Daytrader 
for stress testing.

If everything feels this is important enough to include, I'll spin another 
OpenJPA build and we can either wait until later tonight to cut the 2.0.0 
branch or I can just check the changes into 2.0 and 2.0.0 later 
tonight/tomorrow....

Thoughts?


-Donald

Kevan Miller wrote:
> All,
> I think it's time to create a 2.0.0 branch and start to rev-up the 
> release build process. How do others feel?
> 
>  From that point on, only must-fix changes would be made to 2.0.0. Are 
> there any pending changes? Or are we ready to go?
> 
> --kevan
> 
>