You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to ojb-dev@db.apache.org by Brian McCallister <mc...@forthillcompany.com> on 2004/05/03 22:34:02 UTC
[vote] Speaking of 1.0
Let's release a final RC and if no *major* bugs reported in a week's
time relabel it to 1.0!
[] + 1 Finally!
[] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
[] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
[] -1 It's not ready yet
-Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Robert Sfeir <ro...@codepuccino.com>.
+1
(Would be cool to coincide with article ;-) )
R
On May 3, 2004, at 6:00 PM, Brian McCallister wrote:
> Oh yeah:
>
>> [X] + 1 Finally!
>> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
>> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
>> [] -1 It's not ready yet
>>
>
> -Brian
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
Robert S. Sfeir
Technical Lead
HHS Portal
robert_sfeir@sra.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Brian McCallister <mc...@forthillcompany.com>.
Oh yeah:
> [X] + 1 Finally!
> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
> [] -1 It's not ready yet
>
-Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Leandro Rodrigo Saad Cruz <le...@ibnetwork.com.br>.
> [X] + 1 Finally!
> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
> [] -1 It's not ready yet
--
Leandro Rodrigo Saad Cruz
InterBusiness Tecnologia e Serviços
IB - www.ibnetwork.com.br
DB - www.digitalbrand.com.br
OJB - db.apache.org/ojb
XINGU - xingu.sf.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Thomas Dudziak <to...@first.gmd.de>.
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Brian McCallister wrote:
> These open items are all doc related, I vote for pushing a minor
> doc-fix release when they are done. i am working on docs, but they
> shouldn't hold us up for 1.0. I'll start a new vote thread.
We could split the binary distribution of OJB for the final:
* OJB only (no external libraries)
* OJB with all dependencies (except jdo and j2ee)
* OJB-docs (generated forrest documentation (no pdf) which can simply be
unpacked into one of the above dists)
This way, the downloads will be smaller, and the problem with the
documentation generation is solved as well. The source should be left
unchanged and without pre-made documentation, I think.
> >>> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated - Remove it?
> >>> Any missed files in new Forrest xdocs?
> >>>
> >
> > think we can remove the maven xdocs
+1 (including the build targets)
> >>> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
> >>> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
> >>> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
> >>> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc or only
> >>> can read docs online.
See above: we should provide generated documentation in an additional
archive; and these two targets should be removed from the build
file. Also, the 'forrest' target could be renamed to 'doc' and the output
be placed in an better place (new top-level directory doc ?).
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Brian McCallister <mc...@forthillcompany.com>.
These open items are all doc related, I vote for pushing a minor
doc-fix release when they are done. i am working on docs, but they
shouldn't hold us up for 1.0. I'll start a new vote thread.
-Brian
On Jun 10, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Armin Waibel wrote:
>>>
>>> Never got any comments on this questions:
>>>
>>> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
>>> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "getting started" and
>>> tutorials - any missing hints?
>>>
>
> Brian you working on that stuff?
>
>
>>> - Which tutorial classes/packages are valid, which one are outdate?
>>> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
>>> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single
>>> class)?
>>>
>
> Not assigned!
>
>
>>> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated - Remove it?
>>> Any missed files in new Forrest xdocs?
>>>
>
> think we can remove the maven xdocs
>
>
>>> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
>>> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
>>> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
>>> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc or only
>>> can read docs online.
>
> No response from other commiter.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Brian McCallister <mc...@forthillcompany.com>.
I am looking at docs/tutorials, though I certainly don't want to stop
someone else from doing so!
-Brian
On Jun 11, 2004, at 7:28 AM, Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Armin Waibel wrote:
>
>>>> - Which tutorial classes/packages are valid, which one are outdate?
>>>> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
>>>> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single
>>>> class)?
>>>>
>>
>> Not assigned!
>
> Anybody working on the tutorials ? Otherwise I can have a look at it.
>
>>>> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated - Remove it?
>>>> Any missed files in new Forrest xdocs?
>>>>
>>
>> think we can remove the maven xdocs
>>
>>>> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
>>>> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
>>>> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
>>>> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc or only
>>>> can read docs online.
>>
>> No response from other commiter.
>
> Same for those two: if nobody is working on that, I can have a look and
> clean up the build file.
>
> Tom
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Armin Waibel wrote:
>
>
>> From your previous mail:
>><snip>
>>See above: we should provide generated documentation in an additional
>>archive; and these two targets should be removed from the build
>>file. Also, the 'forrest' target could be renamed to 'doc' and the output
>>be placed in an better place (new top-level directory doc ?).
>><snip>
>>
>>Do you mean to generate a separate documentation archive to store in
>>download section?
>
>
> Yupp, I found that this a convenient way for projects to provide
> documentation , and updating the documentation in the next weeks will be
> easier (no new ojb version necessary if only the docs have changed).
>
+1, sounds good to me
>
>>Be careful when change Forrest output directory I have problems to do
>>that (but it was my first attempt with an older forrest snapshot).
>>Also I have problems to use a different directory for forrest
>>documentation sources.
>>That's the reason why I used the Forrest default settings.
>
>
> I didn't plan to meddle with the Forrest settings (they look rather
> complicated)
indeed they are ;-)
> , but rather use good old Ant magic (copy to 'target' folder
> -> invoke Forrest there -> copy result to top-level 'doc'
> folder). Generation will take a bit longer, but this is way easier and
> default Forrest settings will do just fine then.
+1
>
> BTW, could we put the documentation source into a 'src'-subfolder (say,
> src/forrest or better yet, src/doc) ?
>
+1 for src/doc
Armin
> Tom
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Thomas Dudziak <to...@first.fhg.de>.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Armin Waibel wrote:
> From your previous mail:
> <snip>
> See above: we should provide generated documentation in an additional
> archive; and these two targets should be removed from the build
> file. Also, the 'forrest' target could be renamed to 'doc' and the output
> be placed in an better place (new top-level directory doc ?).
> <snip>
>
> Do you mean to generate a separate documentation archive to store in
> download section?
Yupp, I found that this a convenient way for projects to provide
documentation , and updating the documentation in the next weeks will be
easier (no new ojb version necessary if only the docs have changed).
> Be careful when change Forrest output directory I have problems to do
> that (but it was my first attempt with an older forrest snapshot).
> Also I have problems to use a different directory for forrest
> documentation sources.
> That's the reason why I used the Forrest default settings.
I didn't plan to meddle with the Forrest settings (they look rather
complicated), but rather use good old Ant magic (copy to 'target' folder
-> invoke Forrest there -> copy result to top-level 'doc'
folder). Generation will take a bit longer, but this is way easier and
default Forrest settings will do just fine then.
BTW, could we put the documentation source into a 'src'-subfolder (say,
src/forrest or better yet, src/doc) ?
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Tom,
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Armin Waibel wrote:
>
>
>>>>- Which tutorial classes/packages are valid, which one are outdate?
>>>>tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
>>>>remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single class)?
>>>>
>>
>>Not assigned!
>
>
> Anybody working on the tutorials ? Otherwise I can have a look at it.
>
Great, you get the job ;-)
>
>
> Same for those two: if nobody is working on that, I can have a look and
> clean up the build file.
>
will be great too!
From your previous mail:
<snip>
See above: we should provide generated documentation in an additional
archive; and these two targets should be removed from the build
file. Also, the 'forrest' target could be renamed to 'doc' and the output
be placed in an better place (new top-level directory doc ?).
<snip>
Do you mean to generate a separate documentation archive to store in
download section?
Be careful when change Forrest output directory I have problems to do
that (but it was my first attempt with an older forrest snapshot).
Also I have problems to use a different directory for forrest
documentation sources.
That's the reason why I used the Forrest default settings.
Good luck,
Armin
> Tom
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Thomas Dudziak <to...@first.fhg.de>.
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Armin Waibel wrote:
> >> - Which tutorial classes/packages are valid, which one are outdate?
> >> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
> >> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single class)?
> >>
>
> Not assigned!
Anybody working on the tutorials ? Otherwise I can have a look at it.
> >> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated - Remove it?
> >> Any missed files in new Forrest xdocs?
> >>
>
> think we can remove the maven xdocs
>
> >> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
> >> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
> >> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
> >> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc or only
> >> can read docs online.
>
> No response from other commiter.
Same for those two: if nobody is working on that, I can have a look and
clean up the build file.
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Brian,
Brian McCallister wrote:
> What is the status of everything here?
>
> If not fixed, i think we should document them as broken and get a
> release out the door ASAP.
>
+1
> Armin had the only -1. If these are nto fixed, would you be satisfied
> with documenting them as broken, and pushing minor releases as soon as
> they are fixed?
+1, I'm convinced ;-)
>>
>> we have two major bugs in PB-api, one concerns multi mapped
>> inheritence (Jakob is working on that stuff, I'm sure he will fix
>> this in near future),
AFAIK it's fixed
the other concerns query of objects using
>> referenced objects e.g.
>> crit.addEquals("ref1.ref2.ref3.name", "hello")
>> the generated SQL statement is not correct.
>>
AFAIK it's fixed
>> In ODMG-api we have some issues with m:n relations (see ...odmg.M2NTest)
>> (creation of m:n relations does not work proper - put note in
>> release-notes). And if I remove an object from an collection of a m:n
>> relation I expect that the entry in indirection table will be
>> removed, the object itself should not be removed - currently odmg
>> does. In 1:n relation this will be ok, but in n:m I don't expect
>> this. Is this intended behaviour?
>>
Will add this to release-notes file
>>
>> Never got any comments on this questions:
>>
>> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
>> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "getting started" and
>> tutorials - any missing hints?
>>
Brian you working on that stuff?
>> - Which tutorial classes/packages are valid, which one are outdate?
>> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
>> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single class)?
>>
Not assigned!
>> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated - Remove it?
>> Any missed files in new Forrest xdocs?
>>
think we can remove the maven xdocs
>> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
>> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
>> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
>> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc or only
>> can read docs online.
No response from other commiter.
regards,
Armin
>>
>> regards,
>> Armin
>>
>>> jakob
>>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let's release a final RC and if no *major* bugs reported in a
>>>>> week's time relabel it to 1.0!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Generally speaking I agree, but before this we should cleanup the
>>>> CVS trunk:
>>>>
>>>> - Check for used outdated/duplicated classes
>>>> My last CVS commit move a package from odmg to kernel to avoid
>>>> duplicated code
>>>>
>>>> - Separate the tools stuff from src/java to src/tools
>>>> Started working on that, check in tomorrow
>>>>
>>>> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
>>>> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "gettting started" and
>>>> tutorials - any missing hints?
>>>>
>>>> - Which tutorial classes are valid, which one are outdate?
>>>> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
>>>> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single
>>>> class)?
>>>>
>>>> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated and should
>>>> be removed.
>>>>
>>>> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
>>>> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
>>>> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
>>>> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc.
>>>>
>>>> After finalize these peanuts I fully agree with Brian ;-)
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Armin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [] + 1 Finally!
>>>>> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
>>>>> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
>>>>> [] -1 It's not ready yet
>>>>>
>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Brian McCallister <mc...@forthillcompany.com>.
What is the status of everything here?
If not fixed, i think we should document them as broken and get a
release out the door ASAP.
Armin had the only -1. If these are nto fixed, would you be satisfied
with documenting them as broken, and pushing minor releases as soon as
they are fixed?
-Brian
On May 5, 2004, at 8:26 PM, Armin Waibel wrote:
> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>
>> hi armin,
>> is this a -1 then ?
>>
>
> hmm, I never do -1 vote in my life but you are right this sounds like
> such a vote. I feel like an rigorous teacher ;-) - so
>
> -1 till the following issues are fixed or official deferred (or should
> we do last rc with known bugs?):
>
> we have two major bugs in PB-api, one concerns multi mapped
> inheritence (Jakob is working on that stuff, I'm sure he will fix this
> in near future), the other concerns query of objects using referenced
> objects e.g.
> crit.addEquals("ref1.ref2.ref3.name", "hello")
> the generated SQL statement is not correct.
>
> In ODMG-api we have some issues with m:n relations (see
> ...odmg.M2NTest)
> (creation of m:n relations does not work proper - put note in
> release-notes). And if I remove an object from an collection of a m:n
> relation I expect that the entry in indirection table will be removed,
> the object itself should not be removed - currently odmg does. In 1:n
> relation this will be ok, but in n:m I don't expect this. Is this
> intended behaviour?
>
>
> Never got any comments on this questions:
>
> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "getting started" and
> tutorials - any missing hints?
>
> - Which tutorial classes/packages are valid, which one are outdate?
> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single class)?
>
> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated - Remove it?
> Any missed files in new Forrest xdocs?
>
> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc or only can
> read docs online.
>
> regards,
> Armin
>
>> jakob
>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's release a final RC and if no *major* bugs reported in a
>>>> week's time relabel it to 1.0!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Generally speaking I agree, but before this we should cleanup the
>>> CVS trunk:
>>>
>>> - Check for used outdated/duplicated classes
>>> My last CVS commit move a package from odmg to kernel to avoid
>>> duplicated code
>>>
>>> - Separate the tools stuff from src/java to src/tools
>>> Started working on that, check in tomorrow
>>>
>>> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
>>> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "gettting started" and
>>> tutorials - any missing hints?
>>>
>>> - Which tutorial classes are valid, which one are outdate?
>>> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
>>> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single
>>> class)?
>>>
>>> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated and should
>>> be removed.
>>>
>>> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
>>> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
>>> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
>>> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc.
>>>
>>> After finalize these peanuts I fully agree with Brian ;-)
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Armin
>>>
>>>
>>>> [] + 1 Finally!
>>>> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
>>>> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
>>>> [] -1 It's not ready yet
>>>>
>>>> -Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Brian,
Brian McCallister wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2004, at 8:26 PM, Armin Waibel wrote:
>
>> Never got any comments on this questions:
>>
>> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
>> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "getting started" and
>> tutorials - any missing hints?
>
>
> Will do.
>
Great! Makes me happy ;-)
>>
>> - Which tutorial classes/packages are valid, which one are outdate?
>> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
>> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single class)?
>>
>> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated - Remove it?
>> Any missed files in new Forrest xdocs?
>
>
> I'll double check that everything made it to forrest and remove old stuff.
>
+1
if you interested in build the docs locally with Forrest, I made my used
Forrest snapshot free for download (other versions can make problems)
http://www.powaibel.de/ojb/download/
unzip and add environment variables
http://xml.apache.org/forrest/your-project.html#installing
ant target 'forrest' build docs only, target 'forrest-web' builds docs
with api doc.
>>
>> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
>> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
>> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
>> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc or only
>> can read docs online.
>
>
> Yes! Include them, most definitely. You want to add these to the build?
>
yes I want.
I will add a new directory [db-ojb]/doc to source/binaries build include
the generated OJB documentation and remove the useless targets 'xslt'
and 'htmldoc'.
regards,
Armin
>>
>> regards,
>> Armin
>>
>>> jakob
>>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let's release a final RC and if no *major* bugs reported in a
>>>>> week's time relabel it to 1.0!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Generally speaking I agree, but before this we should cleanup the
>>>> CVS trunk:
>>>>
>>>> - Check for used outdated/duplicated classes
>>>> My last CVS commit move a package from odmg to kernel to avoid
>>>> duplicated code
>>>>
>>>> - Separate the tools stuff from src/java to src/tools
>>>> Started working on that, check in tomorrow
>>>>
>>>> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
>>>> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "gettting started" and
>>>> tutorials - any missing hints?
>>>>
>>>> - Which tutorial classes are valid, which one are outdate?
>>>> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
>>>> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single
>>>> class)?
>>>>
>>>> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated and should
>>>> be removed.
>>>>
>>>> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
>>>> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
>>>> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
>>>> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc.
>>>>
>>>> After finalize these peanuts I fully agree with Brian ;-)
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Armin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [] + 1 Finally!
>>>>> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
>>>>> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
>>>>> [] -1 It's not ready yet
>>>>>
>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Brian McCallister <mc...@forthillcompany.com>.
On May 5, 2004, at 8:26 PM, Armin Waibel wrote:
> Never got any comments on this questions:
>
> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "getting started" and
> tutorials - any missing hints?
Will do.
>
> - Which tutorial classes/packages are valid, which one are outdate?
> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single class)?
>
> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated - Remove it?
> Any missed files in new Forrest xdocs?
I'll double check that everything made it to forrest and remove old
stuff.
>
> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc or only can
> read docs online.
Yes! Include them, most definitely. You want to add these to the build?
>
> regards,
> Armin
>
>> jakob
>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's release a final RC and if no *major* bugs reported in a
>>>> week's time relabel it to 1.0!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Generally speaking I agree, but before this we should cleanup the
>>> CVS trunk:
>>>
>>> - Check for used outdated/duplicated classes
>>> My last CVS commit move a package from odmg to kernel to avoid
>>> duplicated code
>>>
>>> - Separate the tools stuff from src/java to src/tools
>>> Started working on that, check in tomorrow
>>>
>>> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
>>> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "gettting started" and
>>> tutorials - any missing hints?
>>>
>>> - Which tutorial classes are valid, which one are outdate?
>>> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
>>> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single
>>> class)?
>>>
>>> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated and should
>>> be removed.
>>>
>>> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
>>> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
>>> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
>>> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc.
>>>
>>> After finalize these peanuts I fully agree with Brian ;-)
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Armin
>>>
>>>
>>>> [] + 1 Finally!
>>>> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
>>>> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
>>>> [] -1 It's not ready yet
>>>>
>>>> -Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
> hi armin,
>
> is this a -1 then ?
>
hmm, I never do -1 vote in my life but you are right this sounds like
such a vote. I feel like an rigorous teacher ;-) - so
-1 till the following issues are fixed or official deferred (or should
we do last rc with known bugs?):
we have two major bugs in PB-api, one concerns multi mapped inheritence
(Jakob is working on that stuff, I'm sure he will fix this in near
future), the other concerns query of objects using referenced objects e.g.
crit.addEquals("ref1.ref2.ref3.name", "hello")
the generated SQL statement is not correct.
In ODMG-api we have some issues with m:n relations (see ...odmg.M2NTest)
(creation of m:n relations does not work proper - put note in
release-notes). And if I remove an object from an collection of a m:n
relation I expect that the entry in indirection table will be removed,
the object itself should not be removed - currently odmg does. In 1:n
relation this will be ok, but in n:m I don't expect this. Is this
intended behaviour?
Never got any comments on this questions:
- Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "getting started" and
tutorials - any missing hints?
- Which tutorial classes/packages are valid, which one are outdate?
tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single class)?
- After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated - Remove it?
Any missed files in new Forrest xdocs?
- Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc or only can
read docs online.
regards,
Armin
> jakob
>
> Armin Waibel wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>
>>> Let's release a final RC and if no *major* bugs reported in a week's
>>> time relabel it to 1.0!
>>>
>>
>> Generally speaking I agree, but before this we should cleanup the CVS
>> trunk:
>>
>> - Check for used outdated/duplicated classes
>> My last CVS commit move a package from odmg to kernel to avoid
>> duplicated code
>>
>> - Separate the tools stuff from src/java to src/tools
>> Started working on that, check in tomorrow
>>
>> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
>> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "gettting started" and
>> tutorials - any missing hints?
>>
>> - Which tutorial classes are valid, which one are outdate?
>> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) -
>> remove?. What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single class)?
>>
>> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated and should be
>> removed.
>>
>> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
>> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
>> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so,
>> otherwise user need to install Forrest to generate the doc.
>>
>> After finalize these peanuts I fully agree with Brian ;-)
>>
>> regards,
>> Armin
>>
>>
>>> [] + 1 Finally!
>>> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
>>> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
>>> [] -1 It's not ready yet
>>>
>>> -Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch>.
hi armin,
is this a -1 then ?
jakob
Armin Waibel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Brian McCallister wrote:
>
>> Let's release a final RC and if no *major* bugs reported in a week's
>> time relabel it to 1.0!
>>
>
> Generally speaking I agree, but before this we should cleanup the CVS
> trunk:
>
> - Check for used outdated/duplicated classes
> My last CVS commit move a package from odmg to kernel to avoid
> duplicated code
>
> - Separate the tools stuff from src/java to src/tools
> Started working on that, check in tomorrow
>
> - Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
> OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "gettting started" and
> tutorials - any missing hints?
>
> - Which tutorial classes are valid, which one are outdate?
> tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) - remove?.
> What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single class)?
>
> - After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated and should be
> removed.
>
> - Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
> don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
> generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so, otherwise
> user need to install Forrest to generate the doc.
>
> After finalize these peanuts I fully agree with Brian ;-)
>
> regards,
> Armin
>
>
>> [] + 1 Finally!
>> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
>> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
>> [] -1 It's not ready yet
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
Brian McCallister wrote:
> Let's release a final RC and if no *major* bugs reported in a week's
> time relabel it to 1.0!
>
Generally speaking I agree, but before this we should cleanup the CVS trunk:
- Check for used outdated/duplicated classes
My last CVS commit move a package from odmg to kernel to avoid
duplicated code
- Separate the tools stuff from src/java to src/tools
Started working on that, check in tomorrow
- Check documentation, check for outdated stuff?
OJB start site needs a "facelift". Check "gettting started" and
tutorials - any missing hints?
- Which tutorial classes are valid, which one are outdate?
tutorial1, tutorial2 are outdated I think (but I'm not sure) - remove?.
What about tutorial5 directory (contains only a single class)?
- After migration to Forrest [db-ojb]/xdocs is outdated and should be
removed.
- Problem local documentation. The ant targets 'htmldoc' and 'xslt'
don't work with new forrest-xdoc files. Should we include Forrest
generated doc in Source and Binaries OJB versions? I think so, otherwise
user need to install Forrest to generate the doc.
After finalize these peanuts I fully agree with Brian ;-)
regards,
Armin
> [] + 1 Finally!
> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
> [] -1 It's not ready yet
>
> -Brian
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Brian McCallister <mc...@forthillcompany.com>.
On May 4, 2004, at 2:00 AM, Thomas Mahler wrote:
> But according to the apache rules we must have a vote on the PMC list.
Apache rules say PMC vote is required, but I wouldn't be comfortable
voting for a release at the PMC level unless the vote first passed
committers as that is how we have all thought about it thus
> For this vote we don't need an RC. We can simply tag a cvs version let
> the pmc vote about releasing that taged version a 1.0.
We have had a couple major bug fixes, I believe that it should go
through a (very very short) RC so that people can verify that the bugs
they encountered have been resolved before we label this a release =)
-Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: [vote] Speaking of 1.0
Posted by Thomas Mahler <th...@web.de>.
hi Brian,
I agree that a final 1.0 version is overdue!
But according to the apache rules we must have a vote on the PMC list.
For this vote we don't need an RC. We can simply tag a cvs version let
the pmc vote about releasing that taged version a 1.0.
Thomas
Brian McCallister wrote:
> Let's release a final RC and if no *major* bugs reported in a week's
> time relabel it to 1.0!
>
> [+1] + 1 Finally!
> [] +0 Sounds good, but I am not convinced
> [] -0 Sounds bad, but I am not convinced
> [] -1 It's not ready yet
>
> -Brian
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org