You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> on 2006/11/21 02:33:35 UTC
[VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote
for the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes
that Robert mentions.
We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating
release tonight or tomorrow.
Thanks very much to Robert for all the useful feedback and guidance
while we work towards getting an initial release of OpenJPA out the
door!
On Nov 18, 2006, at 2:00 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 11/18/06, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> The file is in the persistence-api component.
>>
>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/source/browse/glassfish/persistence-
>> api/schemas/persistence_1_0.xsd?view=markup
>>
>> The xsd file in question is licensed under the terms of the CDDL
>> license under which we already distribute the persistence jar file.
>>
>> http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Projects/GlassFishCodeDependencies
>>
>> I think we're good to go with this file. The only thing to consider
>> is if we need to update the LICENSE file to call out that this file
>> is associated with this license.
>
> yes please
>
> (this is neat illustration of the reason why the LICENSE file contains
> this information: it's hard enough to work out now. five years down
> the line, it would probably take considerable effort to track this
> information down. apache releases are long lived and licensing
> questions occasionally crop up about code that is over five years
> old.)
>
> thanks for tracking this one down
>
> - robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Endre Stølsvik <Ap...@Stolsvik.com>.
James Strachan wrote:
> On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
>> What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting
>> on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't
>> include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only
>> final bits are voted on.
>
> Have a look at the recent number of RC's we've had to do to get our
> releases in shape...
>
> http://people.apache.org/~chirino/
>
> basically we create a maven repo for each RC but the artifacts inside
> them are all 'the final build' with no RC in their name - then if the
> vote goes well, the RC is just moved to the right place. That way we
> don't have to do another build after the vote - but folks can still
> compare each RC etc.
($0.002 from me):
I positively don't like this way.
If I download this build, and unpack it and use it, I have _no idea_ at
a later stager whether it was the proper release or a RC. There might
even be several rounds of RCs, in which case the problem is even worse -
and the final flaw for me using and potentially distributing the wrong
version might be hefty.
I think that a proper RC should be voted on, in which case all jars,
MANIFESTs, tarballs, and toplevel unpack dirs should have a _clear_ RC
in their name, and then if the vote goes through, a _direct rebuild_ of
the release with the content of the preferably _sole file_ denoting the
release's name changed from "<blah>-RC" to "<blah>" should be done and
posted on the official places.
IMHO, of course.
Endre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
> What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting
> on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't
> include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only
> final bits are voted on.
Have a look at the recent number of RC's we've had to do to get our
releases in shape...
http://people.apache.org/~chirino/
basically we create a maven repo for each RC but the artifacts inside
them are all 'the final build' with no RC in their name - then if the
vote goes well, the RC is just moved to the right place. That way we
don't have to do another build after the vote - but folks can still
compare each RC etc.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 11/26/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
> So out of curiosity, do you do this just for the incubator release vote,
> or do you go through the same process for the votes on your PMC list as
> well? If the same, do you anticipate going through the same process for
> votes after incubation?
We now use the same process for both. We've tried a few permutations
over the years but for maven 2 releases this seems to work the best so
far.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com>.
So out of curiosity, do you do this just for the incubator release vote,
or do you go through the same process for the votes on your PMC list as
well? If the same, do you anticipate going through the same process for
votes after incubation?
-Patrick
--
Patrick Linskey
BEA Systems, Inc.
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chirino@gmail.com [mailto:chirino@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Hiram Chirino
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:41 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
>
> On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
> > We're doing something pretty much the same; just not calling it
> > RC-anything.
> >
> > What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you
> can't be voting
> > on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final
> build doesn't
> > include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my
> understanding that only
> > final bits are voted on.
> >
>
> We just upload the final binaries (without the RC in the name) to a
> directory with an RC-x name in it. Once a given RC-x is finalized we
> copy it's contents to their final resting place.
>
> > -Patrick
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Linskey
> > BEA Systems, Inc.
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments,
> may contain
> > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
> affiliated
> > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
> copyrighted and/or
> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of
> the individual
> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the
> intended recipient,
> > and have received this message in error, please immediately
> return this
> > by email and then delete it.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: chirino@gmail.com [mailto:chirino@gmail.com] On Behalf
> > > Of Hiram Chirino
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:52 PM
> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa
> 0.9.6-incubating release
> > >
> > > To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ
> > > 4.1.0 and we drop it in
> > > a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote
> > > something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it
> in directory
> > > called RC2 etc.
> > >
> > > So I would guess you guys just need to put out at
> > > 0.9.6-incubating RC2
> > >
> > > On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
> > > > > > 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It
> would only be
> > > > > > confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
> > > > > then publish
> > > > > > another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
> > > > > aren't new releases.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread
> about voting on
> > > > > 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1
> as the next
> > > > > iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been
> released yet;
> > > > nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point,
> although I'd
> > > > prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6
> > > currently and 0.9.6.1
> > > > implies that one does.
> > > >
> > > > However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is
> > > this going
> > > > to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6
> vote that's
> > > > currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
> > > >
> > > > -Patrick
> > > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > _________
> > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments,
> > > may contain
> > > > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
> > > affiliated
> > > > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
> > > copyrighted and/or
> > > > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of
> > > the individual
> > > > or entity named in this message. If you are not the
> > > intended recipient,
> > > > and have received this message in error, please immediately
> > > return this
> > > > by email and then delete it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Hiram
> > >
> > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
> We're doing something pretty much the same; just not calling it
> RC-anything.
>
> What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting
> on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't
> include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only
> final bits are voted on.
>
We just upload the final binaries (without the RC in the name) to a
directory with an RC-x name in it. Once a given RC-x is finalized we
copy it's contents to their final resting place.
> -Patrick
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> BEA Systems, Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
> information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
> entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
> by email and then delete it.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: chirino@gmail.com [mailto:chirino@gmail.com] On Behalf
> > Of Hiram Chirino
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:52 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
> >
> > To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ
> > 4.1.0 and we drop it in
> > a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote
> > something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory
> > called RC2 etc.
> >
> > So I would guess you guys just need to put out at
> > 0.9.6-incubating RC2
> >
> > On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
> > > > > 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be
> > > > > confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
> > > > then publish
> > > > > another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
> > > > aren't new releases.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
> > > > 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
> > > > iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
> > >
> > > I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet;
> > > nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
> > >
> > > Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
> > > prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6
> > currently and 0.9.6.1
> > > implies that one does.
> > >
> > > However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is
> > this going
> > > to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
> > > currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
> > >
> > > -Patrick
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > _________
> > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments,
> > may contain
> > > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
> > affiliated
> > > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
> > copyrighted and/or
> > > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of
> > the individual
> > > or entity named in this message. If you are not the
> > intended recipient,
> > > and have received this message in error, please immediately
> > return this
> > > by email and then delete it.
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 11/22/06, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I just don't like that changes to the bits based on an
> internal review should change the name of the release.
(there are several reasons why some projects choose to do this but
here's one of mine)
very occasionally such jars escape into the wild and begin to live a
life of their own. sometime very active lives. under these
circumstances it's not uncommon for them to cause lots trouble later.
unique names restrict the damage done.
an academic point in this case, i agree. not trying to persuade
anyone, just offering some background.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Hiram,
Thanks for the clarification. I understand now how you have decided
to organize your releases.
Craig
On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:38 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I think you misunderstood me. I agree that release name on the
> release artifact should not change. But there should be some simple
> mechanism so that folks can tell which internal review version you are
> talking about. We just choose to do that by uploading each rebuild of
> the same artifact to a new directory.
>
> On 11/21/06, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, I just don't like that changes to the bits based on an
>> internal review should change the name of the release.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>> > To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ
>> > 4.1.0 and we drop it in
>> > a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote
>> > something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in
>> directory
>> > called RC2 etc.
>> >
>> > So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.6-incubating
>> > RC2
>> >
>> > On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
>> >> > > Hi,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
>> >> > > 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would
>> only be
>> >> > > confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
>> >> > then publish
>> >> > > another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
>> >> > aren't new releases.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about
>> voting on
>> >> > 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
>> >> > iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released
>> yet;
>> >> nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
>> >>
>> >> Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point,
>> although I'd
>> >> prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and
>> >> 0.9.6.1
>> >> implies that one does.
>> >>
>> >> However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this
>> >> going
>> >> to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
>> >> currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
>> >>
>> >> -Patrick
>> >>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> >> __
>> >> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
>> >> contain
>> >> information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
>> >> affiliated
>> >> entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
>> >> and/or
>> >> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
>> >> individual
>> >> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
>> >> recipient,
>> >> and have received this message in error, please immediately return
>> >> this
>> >> by email and then delete it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Hiram
>> >
>> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I think you misunderstood me. I agree that release name on the
release artifact should not change. But there should be some simple
mechanism so that folks can tell which internal review version you are
talking about. We just choose to do that by uploading each rebuild of
the same artifact to a new directory.
On 11/21/06, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I just don't like that changes to the bits based on an
> internal review should change the name of the release.
>
> Craig
>
> On Nov 21, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
> > To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ
> > 4.1.0 and we drop it in
> > a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote
> > something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory
> > called RC2 etc.
> >
> > So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.6-incubating
> > RC2
> >
> > On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
> >> > > 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be
> >> > > confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
> >> > then publish
> >> > > another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
> >> > aren't new releases.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
> >> > 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
> >> > iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
> >>
> >> I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet;
> >> nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
> >>
> >> Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
> >> prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and
> >> 0.9.6.1
> >> implies that one does.
> >>
> >> However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this
> >> going
> >> to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
> >> currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
> >>
> >> -Patrick
> >> _____________________________________________________________________
> >> __
> >> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
> >> contain
> >> information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
> >> affiliated
> >> entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
> >> and/or
> >> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
> >> individual
> >> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
> >> recipient,
> >> and have received this message in error, please immediately return
> >> this
> >> by email and then delete it.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Sorry, I just don't like that changes to the bits based on an
internal review should change the name of the release.
Craig
On Nov 21, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ
> 4.1.0 and we drop it in
> a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote
> something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory
> called RC2 etc.
>
> So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.6-incubating
> RC2
>
> On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
>> > > 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be
>> > > confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
>> > then publish
>> > > another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
>> > aren't new releases.
>> >
>> > Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
>> > 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
>> > iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
>>
>> I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet;
>> nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
>>
>> Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
>> prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and
>> 0.9.6.1
>> implies that one does.
>>
>> However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this
>> going
>> to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
>> currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
>>
>> -Patrick
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> __
>> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
>> contain
>> information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
>> affiliated
>> entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
>> and/or
>> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
>> individual
>> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
>> recipient,
>> and have received this message in error, please immediately return
>> this
>> by email and then delete it.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
RE: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com>.
We're doing something pretty much the same; just not calling it
RC-anything.
What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting
on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't
include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only
final bits are voted on.
-Patrick
--
Patrick Linskey
BEA Systems, Inc.
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chirino@gmail.com [mailto:chirino@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Hiram Chirino
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:52 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
>
> To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ
> 4.1.0 and we drop it in
> a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote
> something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory
> called RC2 etc.
>
> So I would guess you guys just need to put out at
> 0.9.6-incubating RC2
>
> On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
> > > > 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be
> > > > confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
> > > then publish
> > > > another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
> > > aren't new releases.
> > >
> > > Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
> > > 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
> > > iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
> >
> > I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet;
> > nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
> >
> > Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
> > prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6
> currently and 0.9.6.1
> > implies that one does.
> >
> > However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is
> this going
> > to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
> > currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
> >
> > -Patrick
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments,
> may contain
> > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
> affiliated
> > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
> copyrighted and/or
> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of
> the individual
> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the
> intended recipient,
> > and have received this message in error, please immediately
> return this
> > by email and then delete it.
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ
4.1.0 and we drop it in
a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote
something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory
called RC2 etc.
So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.6-incubating RC2
On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
> > > 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be
> > > confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
> > then publish
> > > another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
> > aren't new releases.
> >
> > Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
> > 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
> > iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
>
> I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet;
> nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
>
> Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
> prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1
> implies that one does.
>
> However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going
> to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
> currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
>
> -Patrick
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
> information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
> entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
> by email and then delete it.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Let the podling come up with what they call 0.9.6, let it give clear
> information to what that means, and the incubator PMC votes from there.
Agreed - I was making an observation.
> Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>> Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
>>> 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
>>> iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
>>
>> I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet;
>> nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
If you have openjpa-0.9.6-incubating.tar.gz and openjpa-0.9.6-incubating.tar.gz
- that's where the confusion arises... sure you replaced the package, but it's
the same filename 'over here'. That's the rational for not reusing the same
tarball name, or naming the package before-the-vote as -RC#. Either way, there
is no confusion between the first second third or final/official iteration :)
As Geir says - let the openjpa-dev folk decide, this was just food for thought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
I don't think so.
Let the podling come up with what they call 0.9.6, let it give clear
information to what that means, and the incubator PMC votes from there.
This is getting counterproductive.
geir
Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
>>> 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be
>>> confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
>> then publish
>>> another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
>> aren't new releases.
>>
>> Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
>> 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
>> iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
>
> I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet;
> nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
>
> Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
> prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1
> implies that one does.
>
> However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going
> to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
> currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
>
> -Patrick
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
> information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
> entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
> by email and then delete it.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Upayavira,
On Nov 21, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> Patrick Linskey wrote:
>> ...snipped...
>> However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this
>> going
>> to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
>> currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
>
> In the end, all you _NEED_ to do is what you are doing. Make a tgz,
> with a specific version. Make it available here. Start a vote.
Done that.
>
> What I'm talking about is more at the level of convenience. You are
> right that 1.9.6 hasn't been released. But a vote has taken place
> for it. Starting another vote for the same release number could
> make it harder for us to differentiate between the two vote threads.
>
> You could simply do [VOTE] 2nd vote for 0.9.6. That would
> successfully differentiate the vote.
Yeah, that's what Marc has done. The subject line for the current
vote is: [VOTE][THIRD ATTEMPT] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Should be clear enough that this is the THIRD, yes, THIRD ATTEMPT.
Don't know why all the yelling but bygones. ;-)
Craig
>
> That's all I'm _asking_ for (not demanding).
>
> HTH.
>
> Regards, Upayavira
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
>>> 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be
>>> confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
>> then publish
>>> another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
>> aren't new releases.
>>
>> Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
>> 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
>> iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
>
> I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet;
> nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
>
> Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
> prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1
> implies that one does.
>
> However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going
> to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
> currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
In the end, all you _NEED_ to do is what you are doing. Make a tgz, with
a specific version. Make it available here. Start a vote.
What I'm talking about is more at the level of convenience. You are
right that 1.9.6 hasn't been released. But a vote has taken place for
it. Starting another vote for the same release number could make it
harder for us to differentiate between the two vote threads.
You could simply do [VOTE] 2nd vote for 0.9.6. That would successfully
differentiate the vote.
That's all I'm _asking_ for (not demanding).
HTH.
Regards, Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Nov 21, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do.
Do what makes most sense for your developers and your users. It
sounds like you know what that is.
> Is this going
> to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
> currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
No way. As long as you explain the situation so people can do an
informed vote you should be fine.
The day the incubator starts dictating version numbers to podlings is
when I run away screaming :-).
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Patrick,
> Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
> prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1
> However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do.
Figuring this out is something that the PPMC ought to deal with. You have
had several suggestions made to you, and one of the things that *I'd* like
to see is how you folks deal with it.
FWIW, I, personally, do not really care what outcome you come to, so much as
I care to see how you come to a conclusion. Think of me as the Philosophy
Professor from school who doesn't care which side of the debate you argue,
but does care about the argument, itself. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Patrick Linskey <pl...@bea.com>.
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
> > 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be
> > confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and
> then publish
> > another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate
> aren't new releases.
>
> Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
> 0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
> iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
I don't understand the confusion... 0.9.6 hasn't been released yet;
nobody should be confused by a vote for it.
Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1, since there is no 0.9.6 currently and 0.9.6.1
implies that one does.
However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going
to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's
currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list?
-Patrick
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the
> 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be
> confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish
> another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases.
Yes, but it is confusing if you look at the thread about voting on
0.9.6. If 0.9.7 isn't available. Can we have 0.9.6.1 as the next
iteration of the 0.9.6 release?
Upayavira
> On Nov 21, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
>> William
>>
>> Good point, but since the trunk (from which
>> "0.9.7-incubating-SNAPSHOT" nighties are being built) has advanced
>> with potentially destabilizing changes since the branch point
>> "0.9.6-incubating", it might be even more confusing for anyone who is
>> relying on "0.9.7-incubating-SNAPSHOT" changes to see them suddenly
>> gone in a subsequent "0.9.7-incubating" release. We'd rather fix the
>> issues with the licenses and other miscellaneous issues and get the
>> release out the door without introducing the risk of new and changed
>> code causing unnecessary problems and further delays.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:44 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote for
>>>> the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that
>>>> Robert mentions.
>>>>
>>>> We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating
>>>> release
>>>
>>> Remember version numbers are *cheap* - burn one. It resolves confusion
>>> over 'which 0.9.6 is the problem?' 0.9.7, .8, .9, .10 etc can always
>>> follow (and is a good sign the releases are being triple checked when
>>> versions end up begin skipped.)
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi,
I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-
incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing
if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish
another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new
releases.
Craig
On Nov 21, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> William
>
> Good point, but since the trunk (from which "0.9.7-incubating-
> SNAPSHOT" nighties are being built) has advanced with potentially
> destabilizing changes since the branch point "0.9.6-incubating", it
> might be even more confusing for anyone who is relying on "0.9.7-
> incubating-SNAPSHOT" changes to see them suddenly gone in a
> subsequent "0.9.7-incubating" release. We'd rather fix the issues
> with the licenses and other miscellaneous issues and get the
> release out the door without introducing the risk of new and
> changed code causing unnecessary problems and further delays.
>
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:44 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>
>>> For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this
>>> vote for
>>> the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that
>>> Robert mentions.
>>>
>>> We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating
>>> release
>>
>> Remember version numbers are *cheap* - burn one. It resolves
>> confusion
>> over 'which 0.9.6 is the problem?' 0.9.7, .8, .9, .10 etc can always
>> follow (and is a good sign the releases are being triple checked when
>> versions end up begin skipped.)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
William
Good point, but since the trunk (from which "0.9.7-incubating-
SNAPSHOT" nighties are being built) has advanced with potentially
destabilizing changes since the branch point "0.9.6-incubating", it
might be even more confusing for anyone who is relying on "0.9.7-
incubating-SNAPSHOT" changes to see them suddenly gone in a
subsequent "0.9.7-incubating" release. We'd rather fix the issues
with the licenses and other miscellaneous issues and get the release
out the door without introducing the risk of new and changed code
causing unnecessary problems and further delays.
On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:44 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>
>> For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote
>> for
>> the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that
>> Robert mentions.
>>
>> We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating
>> release
>
> Remember version numbers are *cheap* - burn one. It resolves
> confusion
> over 'which 0.9.6 is the problem?' 0.9.7, .8, .9, .10 etc can always
> follow (and is a good sign the releases are being triple checked when
> versions end up begin skipped.)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote for
> the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that
> Robert mentions.
>
> We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating
> release
Remember version numbers are *cheap* - burn one. It resolves confusion
over 'which 0.9.6 is the problem?' 0.9.7, .8, .9, .10 etc can always
follow (and is a good sign the releases are being triple checked when
versions end up begin skipped.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org