You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openjpa.apache.org by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org> on 2009/01/30 23:00:35 UTC
Re: [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access
release
Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1 and
revisit for the next release?
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
> Looks like a problem.
>
> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>
> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early access
>> naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses below,
>> notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the NOTICE in
>> the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA 2.0 EARLY
>> ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet clause ii?
>>
>> <jsr-317 draft>
>> NOTICE
>> ...
>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties for
>> their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such implementation:
>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor
>> Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java
>> interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other
>> than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications
>> being implemented;
>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for
>> testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible with
>> any specification of the JCP."
>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>
>> -Jeremy
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>> <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>> early access milestone release.
>>
>> I've staged the release here:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>
>> The svn location is here:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>
>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>
>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>> files are ok.
>>
>>
>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Any replies from Sun on this?
-Donald
Donald Woods wrote:
> Geir, any updates on getting item (iii) below removed, so we can release
> the early spec implementation and a OpenJPA 2.0.0 M1 release?
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
>>> and revisit for the next release?
>>
>> My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
>> with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
>> changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>> Looks like a problem.
>>>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>>>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the
>>>>> clauses below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added
>>>>> to the NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE
>>>>> use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to
>>>>> meet clause ii?
>>>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>>>> NOTICE
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>>>> implementation:
>>>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor
>>>>> Name Space other than those required/authorized by the
>>>>> Specification or Specifications being implemented;
>>>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification
>>>>> developed under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made
>>>>> available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not
>>>>> compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jeremy
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks
>>>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>>>> early access milestone release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The svn location is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>>>
>>>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>>>> files are ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1
>>>>> [ ] +0
>>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Any replies from Sun on this?
-Donald
Donald Woods wrote:
> Geir, any updates on getting item (iii) below removed, so we can release
> the early spec implementation and a OpenJPA 2.0.0 M1 release?
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
>>> and revisit for the next release?
>>
>> My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
>> with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
>> changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>> Looks like a problem.
>>>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>>>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the
>>>>> clauses below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added
>>>>> to the NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE
>>>>> use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to
>>>>> meet clause ii?
>>>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>>>> NOTICE
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>>>> implementation:
>>>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor
>>>>> Name Space other than those required/authorized by the
>>>>> Specification or Specifications being implemented;
>>>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification
>>>>> developed under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made
>>>>> available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not
>>>>> compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jeremy
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks
>>>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>>>> early access milestone release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The svn location is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>>>
>>>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>>>> files are ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1
>>>>> [ ] +0
>>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Geir, any updates on getting item (iii) below removed, so we can release
the early spec implementation and a OpenJPA 2.0.0 M1 release?
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
>> and revisit for the next release?
>
> My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
> with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
> changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> Looks like a problem.
>>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses
>>>> below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the
>>>> NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA
>>>> 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet
>>>> clause ii?
>>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>>> NOTICE
>>>> ...
>>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>>> implementation:
>>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name
>>>> Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or
>>>> Specifications being implemented;
>>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>>>> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for
>>>> testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible
>>>> with any specification of the JCP."
>>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks
>>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>>> early access milestone release.
>>>>
>>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The svn location is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>>
>>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>>> files are ok.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1
>>>> [ ] +0
>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Geir, any updates on getting item (iii) below removed, so we can release
the early spec implementation and a OpenJPA 2.0.0 M1 release?
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
>> and revisit for the next release?
>
> My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
> with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
> changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> Looks like a problem.
>>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses
>>>> below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the
>>>> NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA
>>>> 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet
>>>> clause ii?
>>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>>> NOTICE
>>>> ...
>>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>>> implementation:
>>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name
>>>> Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or
>>>> Specifications being implemented;
>>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>>>> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for
>>>> testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible
>>>> with any specification of the JCP."
>>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks
>>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>>> early access milestone release.
>>>>
>>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The svn location is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>>
>>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>>> files are ok.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1
>>>> [ ] +0
>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Re: [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
> and revisit for the next release?
My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> Looks like a problem.
>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>> David,
>>>
>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the
>>> clauses below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added
>>> to the NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE
>>> use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to
>>> meet clause ii?
>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>> NOTICE
>>> ...
>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>> implementation:
>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor
>>> Name Space other than those required/authorized by the
>>> Specification or Specifications being implemented;
>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification
>>> developed under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made
>>> available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is
>>> not compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>
>>> -Jeremy
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>> <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>> early access milestone release.
>>>
>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>
>>> The svn location is here:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>
>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>
>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>> files are ok.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
Re: [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
> and revisit for the next release?
My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> Looks like a problem.
>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>> David,
>>>
>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the
>>> clauses below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added
>>> to the NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE
>>> use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to
>>> meet clause ii?
>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>> NOTICE
>>> ...
>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>> implementation:
>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor
>>> Name Space other than those required/authorized by the
>>> Specification or Specifications being implemented;
>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification
>>> developed under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made
>>> available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is
>>> not compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>
>>> -Jeremy
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>> <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>> early access milestone release.
>>>
>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>
>>> The svn location is here:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>
>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>
>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>> files are ok.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>