You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@servicemix.apache.org by Chris Custine <cc...@apache.org> on 2008/02/19 19:25:36 UTC
CXF 2.0.5
Hi Freeman,
I just want to clarify that CXF 2.0.5 has a fix that is required for
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-1232. I was going to propose
that we do a 3.2.2 release some time in the next month or two in order to
make available some of the many bugfixes that have been done and I am
wondering if that will work if we have to wait for 2.0.5 (since 2.0.4 was
just released).
Your thoughts?
Chris
Re: CXF 2.0.5
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Chris,
We'll probably be doing a 2.0.5 around mid/end march. Possibly around
the same time as 2.1.
If you need it sooner, we can probably accomodate that as well. Just
ask on cxf-dev/cxf-user. Just keep in mind, cxf is still in the
incubator so releases take a bit of extra time.
Dan
On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Chris Custine wrote:
> Hi Freeman,
> I just want to clarify that CXF 2.0.5 has a fix that is required for
> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-1232. I was going to
> propose that we do a 3.2.2 release some time in the next month or two
> in order to make available some of the many bugfixes that have been
> done and I am wondering if that will work if we have to wait for 2.0.5
> (since 2.0.4 was just released).
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Chris
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer, IONA
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: CXF 2.0.5
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 19, 2008 6:47 PM, Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> Sorry for the trouble of previous upgrade.
> And this time I fully build the trunk before commit, also after I commit
> the bamboo nigltly build run successfully.
Good to know, thanks, Freeman.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Re: CXF 2.0.5
Posted by Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Bruce,
Sorry for the trouble of previous upgrade.
And this time I fully build the trunk before commit, also after I commit
the bamboo nigltly build run successfully.
Freeman
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2008 6:31 PM, Freeman Fang <fr...@iona.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> SM-1232 don't need fix in cxf-2.0.5.
>>
>> I just change cxf-version to cxf-2.0.5-snapshot in servicemix 3.2.2
>> branch since cxf-2.0.4 is released so cxf-2.04-snapshot is useless and I
>> want all new update in cxf-2.0.5-snapshot could be picked up by
>> servicemix 3.2.2, so far I believe the released cxf-2.0.4-incubator is
>> fine for servicemix 3.2.2
>>
>
> I hope that at a minimum that a fully clean build was performed before
> committing such changes. This includes moving aside your local Maven
> repo to perform the build. Previous upgrades to newer versions of CXF
> were done without testing the rest of the build and this caused Chris
> and I *many* hours of headache trying to fix the resolution of
> dependencies.
>
> Bruce
>
Re: CXF 2.0.5
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 19, 2008 6:31 PM, Freeman Fang <fr...@iona.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> SM-1232 don't need fix in cxf-2.0.5.
>
> I just change cxf-version to cxf-2.0.5-snapshot in servicemix 3.2.2
> branch since cxf-2.0.4 is released so cxf-2.04-snapshot is useless and I
> want all new update in cxf-2.0.5-snapshot could be picked up by
> servicemix 3.2.2, so far I believe the released cxf-2.0.4-incubator is
> fine for servicemix 3.2.2
I hope that at a minimum that a fully clean build was performed before
committing such changes. This includes moving aside your local Maven
repo to perform the build. Previous upgrades to newer versions of CXF
were done without testing the rest of the build and this caused Chris
and I *many* hours of headache trying to fix the resolution of
dependencies.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Re: CXF 2.0.5
Posted by Chris Custine <cc...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the info Freeman!
Chris
On Feb 19, 2008 6:31 PM, Freeman Fang <fr...@iona.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> SM-1232 don't need fix in cxf-2.0.5.
>
> I just change cxf-version to cxf-2.0.5-snapshot in servicemix 3.2.2
> branch since cxf-2.0.4 is released so cxf-2.04-snapshot is useless and I
> want all new update in cxf-2.0.5-snapshot could be picked up by
> servicemix 3.2.2, so far I believe the released cxf-2.0.4-incubator is
> fine for servicemix 3.2.2
>
> Best Regards
>
> Freeman
>
> Chris Custine wrote:
> > Hi Freeman,
> > I just want to clarify that CXF 2.0.5 has a fix that is required for
> > https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-1232. I was going to
> propose
> > that we do a 3.2.2 release some time in the next month or two in order
> to
> > make available some of the many bugfixes that have been done and I am
> > wondering if that will work if we have to wait for 2.0.5 (since 2.0.4was
> > just released).
> >
> > Your thoughts?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
>
Re: CXF 2.0.5
Posted by Freeman Fang <fr...@iona.com>.
Hi Chris,
SM-1232 don't need fix in cxf-2.0.5.
I just change cxf-version to cxf-2.0.5-snapshot in servicemix 3.2.2
branch since cxf-2.0.4 is released so cxf-2.04-snapshot is useless and I
want all new update in cxf-2.0.5-snapshot could be picked up by
servicemix 3.2.2, so far I believe the released cxf-2.0.4-incubator is
fine for servicemix 3.2.2
Best Regards
Freeman
Chris Custine wrote:
> Hi Freeman,
> I just want to clarify that CXF 2.0.5 has a fix that is required for
> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-1232. I was going to propose
> that we do a 3.2.2 release some time in the next month or two in order to
> make available some of the many bugfixes that have been done and I am
> wondering if that will work if we have to wait for 2.0.5 (since 2.0.4 was
> just released).
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Chris
>
>