You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2006/12/28 22:29:08 UTC
[vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/
apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
Here's my +1
-David
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1
-dain
On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
>
> Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
> branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
> Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/
> apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
>
> I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
>
> Here's my +1
>
> -David
[result] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Vote passes with 6 +1s (5 binding) and no other votes.
-David
On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
>
> Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
> branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
> Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/
> apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
>
> I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
>
> Here's my +1
>
> -David
>
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
+1
Jacek
On 12/28/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
>
> Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
> branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
> Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/
> apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
>
> I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
>
> Here's my +1
>
> -David
>
>
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.jaceklaskowski.pl
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
+1
Regards,
Alan
On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
>
> Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
> branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
> Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/
> apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
>
> I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
>
> Here's my +1
>
> -David
>
>
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:12 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> +1 ... sorry for the delay.
Already counted you with your "I'm ok with the vote proceeding as
is...+1" comment.
-David
> On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> We have 6 +1 votes, but it'd be really nice to have more. Please
>> vote! :)
>>
>> Going to close this out tomorrow.
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
>>>
>>> Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
>>> branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
>>> Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/
>>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
>>>
>>> I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
>>>
>>> Here's my +1
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
+1 ... sorry for the delay.
On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> We have 6 +1 votes, but it'd be really nice to have more. Please
> vote! :)
>
> Going to close this out tomorrow.
>
> -David
>
> On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
>>
>> Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
>> branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
>> Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/
>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
>>
>> I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
>>
>> Here's my +1
>>
>> -David
>>
>
>
Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
We have 6 +1 votes, but it'd be really nice to have more. Please
vote! :)
Going to close this out tomorrow.
-David
On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
>
> Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
> branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
> Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/
> apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
>
> I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
>
> Here's my +1
>
> -David
>
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Dec 31, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> David is out of town but I think I can answer.... The previous
>> release was only a milestone. These are final 1.0 jars that have
>> been verified using the JEE 5 signature tests. If you want to
>> know what has changed just run svn diff:
>
> Right, but I didn't ask a question. I stated that we ought to be
> identifying this information in the vote (or a previous discussion
> thread). All it takes is -- "Testing of the EJB3 spec has
> identified signature problems in the existing 1.0-M1 release of the
> spec. I've fixed these problems and updated the version numbers of
> the specs that EJB3 is dependent on. I propose we release a final
> 1.0 version of EJB3." This way all voters (and non-voters) understand.
Even if there weren't a change to the code, we still need to release
final versions, as the M1 versions are just a Milestone on the path
to a full final release.
> For the record -- I'm +1 for a release. Due to the finger check in
> the original vote, I'd suggest that a new vote be called, but admit
> that may be going a bit overboard...
I think that is overboard.
-dain
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jan 2, 2007, at 3:21 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2007, at 5:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Hey All, back and catching up.
>>
>> As I mentioned in the first specs vote that I proposed "I've done
>> the work to fix some of our spec jars so they are compliant and
>> would like us to start releasing them and removing snapshot
>> references from our builds." I've since started abbreviating that
>> to "Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release" as the
>> changes the changes are pretty much N iterations of added/removed/
>> updated a (or many) constructor/method/annotation.
>>
>> Anyway, I was half inclined to put links to the related commits in
>> the vote threads as the diffs are the only real way to describe
>> several API tweaks, but just didn't pull the trigger on that
>> idea. Wish I had.
>>
>> Here's that info now:
>>
>> Changes to Annotations 1.0
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489255
>>
>> Changes to EJB 3.0
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=489258
>>
>> Changes to EJB 3.0 Persistence (JPA)
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489260
>>
>> EJB 3.0 Interceptors and JTA 1.1 were fine hence the description
>> of "Verified and compliant and ready for release" in their release
>> threads. I haven't yet had the chance to verify any other specs
>> for compliance.
>
> The jacc-1.1 spec has a significant amount of functionality in the
> permission classes so it needs more than just signature
> verification before we release it.
Definitely.
-David
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jan 2, 2007, at 5:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Hey All, back and catching up.
>
> As I mentioned in the first specs vote that I proposed "I've done
> the work to fix some of our spec jars so they are compliant and
> would like us to start releasing them and removing snapshot
> references from our builds." I've since started abbreviating that
> to "Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release" as the
> changes the changes are pretty much N iterations of added/removed/
> updated a (or many) constructor/method/annotation.
>
> Anyway, I was half inclined to put links to the related commits in
> the vote threads as the diffs are the only real way to describe
> several API tweaks, but just didn't pull the trigger on that idea.
> Wish I had.
>
> Here's that info now:
>
> Changes to Annotations 1.0
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489255
>
> Changes to EJB 3.0
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=489258
>
> Changes to EJB 3.0 Persistence (JPA)
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489260
>
> EJB 3.0 Interceptors and JTA 1.1 were fine hence the description of
> "Verified and compliant and ready for release" in their release
> threads. I haven't yet had the chance to verify any other specs
> for compliance.
The jacc-1.1 spec has a significant amount of functionality in the
permission classes so it needs more than just signature verification
before we release it.
thanks
david jencks
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> -David
>
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Hey All, back and catching up.
As I mentioned in the first specs vote that I proposed "I've done the
work to fix some of our spec jars so they are compliant and would
like us to start releasing them and removing snapshot references from
our builds." I've since started abbreviating that to "Fixed,
verified to be compliant and ready for release" as the changes the
changes are pretty much N iterations of added/removed/updated a (or
many) constructor/method/annotation.
Anyway, I was half inclined to put links to the related commits in
the vote threads as the diffs are the only real way to describe
several API tweaks, but just didn't pull the trigger on that idea.
Wish I had.
Here's that info now:
Changes to Annotations 1.0
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489255
Changes to EJB 3.0
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=489258
Changes to EJB 3.0 Persistence (JPA)
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=489260
EJB 3.0 Interceptors and JTA 1.1 were fine hence the description of
"Verified and compliant and ready for release" in their release
threads. I haven't yet had the chance to verify any other specs for
compliance.
Happy New Year!
-David
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
> I don't think we ever done that before because because up til now
> everyone has just known what's changed. For this spec he did say
> "Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release." which
> based on the diff sadly does describe what has changed for this
> release :) Anyway, if this is another requirement for a Geronimo
> release, I'm sure David will add it to the remaining specs he is
> releasing.
>
I agree that we don't want to get pedantic on the releases; that will
just make life more difficult. I think there is a balance between
"Release this" and "I updated this that and the other thing and would
like to get these out." We need to operate from a position of trust
and respect. I think that we'll see both of these be executed with a
short statement and an ok from the community.
> BTW, David was out of town for the holiday weekend and I think he
> will be back tomorrow of the next day.
>
> Happy New Year,
>
And here we go... :)
> -dain
>
Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Dec 31, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> On Dec 30, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> David is out of town but I think I can answer.... The previous
>>> release was only a milestone. These are final 1.0 jars that have
>>> been verified using the JEE 5 signature tests. If you want to
>>> know what has changed just run svn diff:
>>
>> Right, but I didn't ask a question. I stated that we ought to be
>> identifying this information in the vote (or a previous discussion
>> thread). All it takes is -- "Testing of the EJB3 spec has
>> identified signature problems in the existing 1.0-M1 release of
>> the spec. I've fixed these problems and updated the version
>> numbers of the specs that EJB3 is dependent on. I propose we
>> release a final 1.0 version of EJB3." This way all voters (and non-
>> voters) understand.
>>
>
> I agree that the person proposing the vote should provide some
> information about what the changes are. It seems a little
> unreasonable to rely on an svn diff to document the changes.
I don't think we ever done that before because because up til now
everyone has just known what's changed. For this spec he did say
"Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release." which based
on the diff sadly does describe what has changed for this release :)
Anyway, if this is another requirement for a Geronimo release, I'm
sure David will add it to the remaining specs he is releasing.
BTW, David was out of town for the holiday weekend and I think he
will be back tomorrow of the next day.
Happy New Year,
-dain
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
On Dec 31, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> David is out of town but I think I can answer.... The previous
>> release was only a milestone. These are final 1.0 jars that have
>> been verified using the JEE 5 signature tests. If you want to
>> know what has changed just run svn diff:
>
> Right, but I didn't ask a question. I stated that we ought to be
> identifying this information in the vote (or a previous discussion
> thread). All it takes is -- "Testing of the EJB3 spec has
> identified signature problems in the existing 1.0-M1 release of the
> spec. I've fixed these problems and updated the version numbers of
> the specs that EJB3 is dependent on. I propose we release a final
> 1.0 version of EJB3." This way all voters (and non-voters) understand.
>
I agree that the person proposing the vote should provide some
information about what the changes are. It seems a little
unreasonable to rely on an svn diff to document the changes.
> For the record -- I'm +1 for a release. Due to the finger check in
> the original vote, I'd suggest that a new vote be called, but admit
> that may be going a bit overboard...
I'm ok with the vote proceeding as is...+1
>
> --kevan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 30, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> David is out of town but I think I can answer.... The previous
> release was only a milestone. These are final 1.0 jars that have
> been verified using the JEE 5 signature tests. If you want to know
> what has changed just run svn diff:
Right, but I didn't ask a question. I stated that we ought to be
identifying this information in the vote (or a previous discussion
thread). All it takes is -- "Testing of the EJB3 spec has identified
signature problems in the existing 1.0-M1 release of the spec. I've
fixed these problems and updated the version numbers of the specs
that EJB3 is dependent on. I propose we release a final 1.0 version
of EJB3." This way all voters (and non-voters) understand.
For the record -- I'm +1 for a release. Due to the finger check in
the original vote, I'd suggest that a new vote be called, but admit
that may be going a bit overboard...
--kevan
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Dec 30, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2006, at 4:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
>>
>> Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
>> branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
>> Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/
>> org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
>>
>> I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
>>
>> Here's my +1
>>
>> -David
>>
>
> Well, the above pointer to the release branch is bad. I assume it
> should be https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/
> geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec-1.0/
>
> David,
> I think these votes should provide a bit of background on how they
> differ from previously release versions/why they need to be released.
David is out of town but I think I can answer.... The previous
release was only a milestone. These are final 1.0 jars that have
been verified using the JEE 5 signature tests. If you want to know
what has changed just run svn diff:
svn diff \
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-
ejb_3.0_spec-1.0-M1 \
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-
ejb_3.0_spec
-dain
Re: [vote] Release geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 28, 2006, at 4:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
>
> Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
> branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
> Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/
> apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
>
> I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
>
> Here's my +1
>
> -David
>
Well, the above pointer to the release branch is bad. I assume it
should be https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/
geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec-1.0/
David,
I think these votes should provide a bit of background on how they
differ from previously release versions/why they need to be released.
Or, prefereably, that should be covered in a Discuss thread,
preceding a vote.
If the vote was called on https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/
specs/branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec-1.0/, I'd be +1.
--kevan