You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> on 2008/08/15 11:52:40 UTC
Release 1.3.1 was: Re: Next SCA release
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com <mailto:
>> ant.elder@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws
>> <simonslaws@googlemail.com <ma...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new
>> function out in 1.3.1. <http://1.3.1.> JMS changes that fix
>> deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates though.
>>
>>
>>
>> What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes?
>> There are no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x
>> as opposed to 1.x.x so i think its fine to add new function in a
>> 1.x.x style release. If the concern is that it may delay getting
>> some critical fixes released then maybe we just need to coordinate
>> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases?
>> Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively easy
>> as demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do
>> and to review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an easy
>> way to get new function released, and it can be done by individuals
>> instead of requiring lots of community help. As i just suggested on
>> the "1.3 Washup, release process improvement" this seems like and
>> easy way to RERO given the size of Tuscany these days.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>>
>> I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from JIRAs
>> in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if anyone has
>> some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a little
>> longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into 1.3.x.
>>
>> I have completed the fix for TUSCANY-2531 now. This needs to go into
> 1.3.1. The fix passes a full build and I'll check it in later today.
>
> Simon
>
>
Hi,
We are down to 3 issues related to 1.3.1.
TUSCANY-2534
Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
TUSCANY-2514
Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
TUSCANY-2542
Looks like a stretch for 1.3.1
If we can get the first two closed out I think we can spin a release
candidate.
Regards
Simon
Re: Release 1.3.1 was: Re: Next SCA release
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 7:31 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:57 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <
>>>>> simonslaws@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ant elder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com<mailto:
>>>>>>>> ant.elder@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws
>>>>>>>> <simonslaws@googlemail.com <ma...@googlemail.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new
>>>>>>>> function out in 1.3.1. <http://1.3.1.> JMS changes that fix
>>>>>>>> deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes?
>>>>>>>> There are no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x
>>>>>>>> as opposed to 1.x.x so i think its fine to add new function in a
>>>>>>>> 1.x.x style release. If the concern is that it may delay getting
>>>>>>>> some critical fixes released then maybe we just need to
>>>>>>>> coordinate
>>>>>>>> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases?
>>>>>>>> Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively
>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>> as demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do
>>>>>>>> and to review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an
>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>> way to get new function released, and it can be done by
>>>>>>>> individuals
>>>>>>>> instead of requiring lots of community help. As i just suggested
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the "1.3 Washup, release process improvement" this seems like and
>>>>>>>> easy way to RERO given the size of Tuscany these days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from
>>>>>>>> JIRAs in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if anyone
>>>>>>>> has some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a
>>>>>>>> little longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into
>>>>>>>> 1.3.x.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have completed the fix for TUSCANY-2531 now. This needs to go
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> 1.3.1. The fix passes a full build and I'll check it in later
>>>>>>> today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are down to 3 issues related to 1.3.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TUSCANY-2534
>>>>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>>>>>> TUSCANY-2514
>>>>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>>>>>> TUSCANY-2542
>>>>>> Looks like a stretch for 1.3.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can get the first two closed out I think we can spin a release
>>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, seems like we've accepted there should be a 1.3.1 release now so
>>>>> i'll do these and spin an RC1, i'll try to get that done by late Monday,
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are some release artifacts for 1.3.1 available for review at
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/>and a tag at
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.3.1-RC0/
>>>>
>>>> I'll leave this for a day or two to give time for any reviews and look
>>>> at starting an RC1 release vote on say Wednesday.
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I tried a good selection of samples and demos and all is fine on the
>>> command line and in Tomcat. However we haven't solved all of the issues with
>>> WebSphere classloading. It seems that there some scenarios where the change
>>> to remove dependencies on xml-apis, xerces and xalan (TUSCANY-2534) causes
>>> other problems that I'm still investigating.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> With the additional fix to TUSCANY-2534 in r687572 the WS samples are
>> running fine in WebSphere for me, can you confirm this fixes it for you?
>>
>> The only issue i have left is running the Dave's ejb sample from
>> http://apache.markmail.org/message/rpjlc5iaal6neabj. This mostly doesn't
>> work for me getting a Java class verify error. It seems slightly
>> intermittent as it did work once but usually doesn't, converting the EJB
>> back to use the SCADomain API and it always works fine. I don't think this
>> is a blocker for 1.3.1
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>>
>>
>
> Ok, am updating/compiling now. Will let you know shortly.
>
> Simon
>
Here's what I found for latest 1.3.1
calculator-webapp
Tomcat 6 - Works out of the box
WebSphere 6.1 - Works out of the box
calculator-ws-webapp
Tomcat 6 - Works out of the box
WebSphere 6.1 - Works out of the box
Dave's EJB app
WebSphere 6.1 - Works out of the box
I wasn't expecting the EJB app to work as I've tried this combination before
to no avail. So maybe I'm seeing the same intermittent behaviour that you
are. I can try SCA Domain also and confirm that that works for me. On the
basis that we have a work round I suggest you roll RC1 and start a vote. We
can take a look at this possible node issue in slow time in trunk.
Dave, feel free to pitch in if ths sounds problematic.
Simon
Re: Release 1.3.1 was: Re: Next SCA release
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 7:31 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:57 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <simonslaws@googlemail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ant elder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com<mailto:
>>>>>>> ant.elder@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws
>>>>>>> <simonslaws@googlemail.com <ma...@googlemail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new
>>>>>>> function out in 1.3.1. <http://1.3.1.> JMS changes that fix
>>>>>>> deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes?
>>>>>>> There are no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x
>>>>>>> as opposed to 1.x.x so i think its fine to add new function in a
>>>>>>> 1.x.x style release. If the concern is that it may delay getting
>>>>>>> some critical fixes released then maybe we just need to coordinate
>>>>>>> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases?
>>>>>>> Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively
>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>> as demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do
>>>>>>> and to review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an
>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>> way to get new function released, and it can be done by
>>>>>>> individuals
>>>>>>> instead of requiring lots of community help. As i just suggested
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the "1.3 Washup, release process improvement" this seems like and
>>>>>>> easy way to RERO given the size of Tuscany these days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from
>>>>>>> JIRAs in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if anyone
>>>>>>> has some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a
>>>>>>> little longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into
>>>>>>> 1.3.x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have completed the fix for TUSCANY-2531 now. This needs to go
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> 1.3.1. The fix passes a full build and I'll check it in later today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are down to 3 issues related to 1.3.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> TUSCANY-2534
>>>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>>>>> TUSCANY-2514
>>>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>>>>> TUSCANY-2542
>>>>> Looks like a stretch for 1.3.1
>>>>>
>>>>> If we can get the first two closed out I think we can spin a release
>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, seems like we've accepted there should be a 1.3.1 release now so
>>>> i'll do these and spin an RC1, i'll try to get that done by late Monday,
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are some release artifacts for 1.3.1 available for review at
>>> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/>and a tag at
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.3.1-RC0/
>>>
>>> I'll leave this for a day or two to give time for any reviews and look at
>>> starting an RC1 release vote on say Wednesday.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I tried a good selection of samples and demos and all is fine on the
>> command line and in Tomcat. However we haven't solved all of the issues with
>> WebSphere classloading. It seems that there some scenarios where the change
>> to remove dependencies on xml-apis, xerces and xalan (TUSCANY-2534) causes
>> other problems that I'm still investigating.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> With the additional fix to TUSCANY-2534 in r687572 the WS samples are
> running fine in WebSphere for me, can you confirm this fixes it for you?
>
> The only issue i have left is running the Dave's ejb sample from
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/rpjlc5iaal6neabj. This mostly doesn't
> work for me getting a Java class verify error. It seems slightly
> intermittent as it did work once but usually doesn't, converting the EJB
> back to use the SCADomain API and it always works fine. I don't think this
> is a blocker for 1.3.1
>
> ...ant
>
>
>
Ok, am updating/compiling now. Will let you know shortly.
Simon
Re: Release 1.3.1 was: Re: Next SCA release
Posted by Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>.
ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:57 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ant elder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com<mailto:
>>>>>>> ant.elder@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws
>>>>>>> <simonslaws@googlemail.com <ma...@googlemail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new
>>>>>>> function out in 1.3.1. <http://1.3.1.> JMS changes that fix
>>>>>>> deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes?
>>>>>>> There are no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x
>>>>>>> as opposed to 1.x.x so i think its fine to add new function in a
>>>>>>> 1.x.x style release. If the concern is that it may delay getting
>>>>>>> some critical fixes released then maybe we just need to coordinate
>>>>>>> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases?
>>>>>>> Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively easy
>>>>>>> as demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do
>>>>>>> and to review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an
>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>> way to get new function released, and it can be done by individuals
>>>>>>> instead of requiring lots of community help. As i just suggested on
>>>>>>> the "1.3 Washup, release process improvement" this seems like and
>>>>>>> easy way to RERO given the size of Tuscany these days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from
>>>>>>> JIRAs in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if anyone
>>>>>>> has some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a
>>>>>>> little longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into
>>>>>>> 1.3.x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have completed the fix for TUSCANY-2531 now. This needs to go into
>>>>>> 1.3.1. The fix passes a full build and I'll check it in later today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are down to 3 issues related to 1.3.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> TUSCANY-2534
>>>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>>>>> TUSCANY-2514
>>>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>>>>> TUSCANY-2542
>>>>> Looks like a stretch for 1.3.1
>>>>>
>>>>> If we can get the first two closed out I think we can spin a release
>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, seems like we've accepted there should be a 1.3.1 release now so i'll
>>>> do these and spin an RC1, i'll try to get that done by late Monday,
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>> There are some release artifacts for 1.3.1 available for review at
>>> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/>and a tag at
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.3.1-RC0/
>>>
>>> I'll leave this for a day or two to give time for any reviews and look at
>>> starting an RC1 release vote on say Wednesday.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I tried a good selection of samples and demos and all is fine on the
>> command line and in Tomcat. However we haven't solved all of the issues with
>> WebSphere classloading. It seems that there some scenarios where the change
>> to remove dependencies on xml-apis, xerces and xalan (TUSCANY-2534) causes
>> other problems that I'm still investigating.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> With the additional fix to TUSCANY-2534 in r687572 the WS samples are
> running fine in WebSphere for me, can you confirm this fixes it for you?
>
> The only issue i have left is running the Dave's ejb sample from
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/rpjlc5iaal6neabj. This mostly doesn't
> work for me getting a Java class verify error. It seems slightly
> intermittent as it did work once but usually doesn't, converting the EJB
> back to use the SCADomain API and it always works fine. I don't think this
> is a blocker for 1.3.1
>
> ...ant
>
I've tried a number of samples related to Atom and HTTP bindings, etc.
It all seems to run for me. Also I did a clean and build, and it all
builds cleanly for me.
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: Release 1.3.1 was: Re: Next SCA release
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:57 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ant elder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com<mailto:
>>>>>> ant.elder@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws
>>>>>> <simonslaws@googlemail.com <ma...@googlemail.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new
>>>>>> function out in 1.3.1. <http://1.3.1.> JMS changes that fix
>>>>>> deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes?
>>>>>> There are no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x
>>>>>> as opposed to 1.x.x so i think its fine to add new function in a
>>>>>> 1.x.x style release. If the concern is that it may delay getting
>>>>>> some critical fixes released then maybe we just need to coordinate
>>>>>> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases?
>>>>>> Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively easy
>>>>>> as demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do
>>>>>> and to review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an
>>>>>> easy
>>>>>> way to get new function released, and it can be done by individuals
>>>>>> instead of requiring lots of community help. As i just suggested on
>>>>>> the "1.3 Washup, release process improvement" this seems like and
>>>>>> easy way to RERO given the size of Tuscany these days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from
>>>>>> JIRAs in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if anyone
>>>>>> has some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a
>>>>>> little longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into
>>>>>> 1.3.x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have completed the fix for TUSCANY-2531 now. This needs to go into
>>>>> 1.3.1. The fix passes a full build and I'll check it in later today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> We are down to 3 issues related to 1.3.1.
>>>>
>>>> TUSCANY-2534
>>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>>>> TUSCANY-2514
>>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>>>> TUSCANY-2542
>>>> Looks like a stretch for 1.3.1
>>>>
>>>> If we can get the first two closed out I think we can spin a release
>>>> candidate.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ok, seems like we've accepted there should be a 1.3.1 release now so i'll
>>> do these and spin an RC1, i'll try to get that done by late Monday,
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> There are some release artifacts for 1.3.1 available for review at
>> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/>and a tag at
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.3.1-RC0/
>>
>> I'll leave this for a day or two to give time for any reviews and look at
>> starting an RC1 release vote on say Wednesday.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Hi
>
> I tried a good selection of samples and demos and all is fine on the
> command line and in Tomcat. However we haven't solved all of the issues with
> WebSphere classloading. It seems that there some scenarios where the change
> to remove dependencies on xml-apis, xerces and xalan (TUSCANY-2534) causes
> other problems that I'm still investigating.
>
> Simon
>
With the additional fix to TUSCANY-2534 in r687572 the WS samples are
running fine in WebSphere for me, can you confirm this fixes it for you?
The only issue i have left is running the Dave's ejb sample from
http://apache.markmail.org/message/rpjlc5iaal6neabj. This mostly doesn't
work for me getting a Java class verify error. It seems slightly
intermittent as it did work once but usually doesn't, converting the EJB
back to use the SCADomain API and it always works fine. I don't think this
is a blocker for 1.3.1
...ant
Re: Release 1.3.1 was: Re: Next SCA release
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:57 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ant elder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com<mailto:
>>>>> ant.elder@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws
>>>>> <simonslaws@googlemail.com <ma...@googlemail.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new
>>>>> function out in 1.3.1. <http://1.3.1.> JMS changes that fix
>>>>> deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates though.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes?
>>>>> There are no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x
>>>>> as opposed to 1.x.x so i think its fine to add new function in a
>>>>> 1.x.x style release. If the concern is that it may delay getting
>>>>> some critical fixes released then maybe we just need to coordinate
>>>>> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases?
>>>>> Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively easy
>>>>> as demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do
>>>>> and to review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an easy
>>>>> way to get new function released, and it can be done by individuals
>>>>> instead of requiring lots of community help. As i just suggested on
>>>>> the "1.3 Washup, release process improvement" this seems like and
>>>>> easy way to RERO given the size of Tuscany these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from
>>>>> JIRAs in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if anyone
>>>>> has some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a
>>>>> little longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into
>>>>> 1.3.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have completed the fix for TUSCANY-2531 now. This needs to go into
>>>> 1.3.1. The fix passes a full build and I'll check it in later today.
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We are down to 3 issues related to 1.3.1.
>>>
>>> TUSCANY-2534
>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>>> TUSCANY-2514
>>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>>> TUSCANY-2542
>>> Looks like a stretch for 1.3.1
>>>
>>> If we can get the first two closed out I think we can spin a release
>>> candidate.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, seems like we've accepted there should be a 1.3.1 release now so i'll
>> do these and spin an RC1, i'll try to get that done by late Monday,
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> There are some release artifacts for 1.3.1 available for review at
> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/>and a tag at
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.3.1-RC0/
>
> I'll leave this for a day or two to give time for any reviews and look at
> starting an RC1 release vote on say Wednesday.
>
> ...ant
>
Hi
I tried a good selection of samples and demos and all is fine on the command
line and in Tomcat. However we haven't solved all of the issues with
WebSphere classloading. It seems that there some scenarios where the change
to remove dependencies on xml-apis, xerces and xalan (TUSCANY-2534) causes
other problems that I'm still investigating.
Simon
Re: Release 1.3.1 was: Re: Next SCA release
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:57 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com<mailto:
>>>> ant.elder@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws
>>>> <simonslaws@googlemail.com <ma...@googlemail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new
>>>> function out in 1.3.1. <http://1.3.1.> JMS changes that fix
>>>> deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes?
>>>> There are no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x
>>>> as opposed to 1.x.x so i think its fine to add new function in a
>>>> 1.x.x style release. If the concern is that it may delay getting
>>>> some critical fixes released then maybe we just need to coordinate
>>>> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases?
>>>> Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively easy
>>>> as demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do
>>>> and to review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an easy
>>>> way to get new function released, and it can be done by individuals
>>>> instead of requiring lots of community help. As i just suggested on
>>>> the "1.3 Washup, release process improvement" this seems like and
>>>> easy way to RERO given the size of Tuscany these days.
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from
>>>> JIRAs in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if anyone
>>>> has some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a
>>>> little longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into
>>>> 1.3.x.
>>>>
>>>> I have completed the fix for TUSCANY-2531 now. This needs to go into
>>> 1.3.1. The fix passes a full build and I'll check it in later today.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are down to 3 issues related to 1.3.1.
>>
>> TUSCANY-2534
>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>> TUSCANY-2514
>> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
>> TUSCANY-2542
>> Looks like a stretch for 1.3.1
>>
>> If we can get the first two closed out I think we can spin a release
>> candidate.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
> Ok, seems like we've accepted there should be a 1.3.1 release now so i'll
> do these and spin an RC1, i'll try to get that done by late Monday,
>
> ...ant
>
There are some release artifacts for 1.3.1 available for review at
http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/1.3.1-RC0/ and a tag at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.3.1-RC0/
I'll leave this for a day or two to give time for any reviews and look at
starting an RC1 release vote on say Wednesday.
...ant
Re: Release 1.3.1 was: Re: Next SCA release
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Simon Nash <na...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> ant elder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com <mailto:
>>> ant.elder@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Simon Laws
>>> <simonslaws@googlemail.com <ma...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Re. JMS. I'm a little nervous about putting completely new
>>> function out in 1.3.1. <http://1.3.1.> JMS changes that fix
>>> deficiencies from 1.3 would be candidates though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is it that makes you nervous about adding the JMS changes?
>>> There are no "rules" about what should go into a release named 1.x
>>> as opposed to 1.x.x so i think its fine to add new function in a
>>> 1.x.x style release. If the concern is that it may delay getting
>>> some critical fixes released then maybe we just need to coordinate
>>> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 releases?
>>> Doing releases based on the previous release tag is relatively easy
>>> as demonstrated by the 1.2.1 release. It takes minimal work to do
>>> and to review, it makes it easy to document the changes, its an easy
>>> way to get new function released, and it can be done by individuals
>>> instead of requiring lots of community help. As i just suggested on
>>> the "1.3 Washup, release process improvement" this seems like and
>>> easy way to RERO given the size of Tuscany these days.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll start making the 1.3.1 branch today and merge in and fixes from
>>> JIRAs in Java-SCA-1.3.1. The main one outstanding is TUSCANY-2539 if anyone
>>> has some time. I'll leave the JMS changes for the time being waiting a
>>> little longer to see if there are any reasons why it should not go into
>>> 1.3.x.
>>>
>>> I have completed the fix for TUSCANY-2531 now. This needs to go into
>> 1.3.1. The fix passes a full build and I'll check it in later today.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
> Hi,
>
> We are down to 3 issues related to 1.3.1.
>
> TUSCANY-2534
> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
> TUSCANY-2514
> Ant you made a fix in trunk. Are you going to apply to 1.3.1?
> TUSCANY-2542
> Looks like a stretch for 1.3.1
>
> If we can get the first two closed out I think we can spin a release
> candidate.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
>
Ok, seems like we've accepted there should be a 1.3.1 release now so i'll do
these and spin an RC1, i'll try to get that done by late Monday,
...ant