[VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

David Blevins-2
Ok!  All dependent projects are up for votes or completed voting.

I rolled a new set of binaries with Mark's proposed OpenJPA 2.3.0 binaries.  I ran these through the TCK and all is green.  Looks like we're good to go.

Maven Repo:

- https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomee-120/

Binaries:

- https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomee/staging-120/tomee-1.6.0/

Tag:

- https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/tomee/tags/tomee-1.6.0/


The vote will go for 72 hours.  Any -1s in this time will be seen as a positive.  The vote will keep going even if a -1 happens so we can collect all possible feedback and surface *all* issues.

If we have to reroll and revote, we will fix all -1 issues and push new binaries and start a new 72 hour vote.  If you didn't look at the first set of binaries and feel compelled to vote -1, this will be seen as a negative.  Consider offering each voter an hour per vote on a task of their choosing to make up for their lost time. :)


-David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

Jeff Genender-2
+1 ;-)

Jeff

On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:47 PM, David Blevins <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ok!  All dependent projects are up for votes or completed voting.
>
> I rolled a new set of binaries with Mark's proposed OpenJPA 2.3.0 binaries.  I ran these through the TCK and all is green.  Looks like we're good to go.
>
> Maven Repo:
>
> - https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomee-120/
>
> Binaries:
>
> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomee/staging-120/tomee-1.6.0/
>
> Tag:
>
> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/tomee/tags/tomee-1.6.0/
>
>
> The vote will go for 72 hours.  Any -1s in this time will be seen as a positive.  The vote will keep going even if a -1 happens so we can collect all possible feedback and surface *all* issues.
>
> If we have to reroll and revote, we will fix all -1 issues and push new binaries and start a new 72 hour vote.  If you didn't look at the first set of binaries and feel compelled to vote -1, this will be seen as a negative.  Consider offering each voter an hour per vote on a task of their choosing to make up for their lost time. :)
>
>
> -David
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

Thiago Veronezi
+1... It works like a charm!

[]s,
Thiago.



On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Jeff Genender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 ;-)
>
> Jeff
>
> On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:47 PM, David Blevins <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok!  All dependent projects are up for votes or completed voting.
> >
> > I rolled a new set of binaries with Mark's proposed OpenJPA 2.3.0
> binaries.  I ran these through the TCK and all is green.  Looks like we're
> good to go.
> >
> > Maven Repo:
> >
> > - https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomee-120/
> >
> > Binaries:
> >
> > - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomee/staging-120/tomee-1.6.0/
> >
> > Tag:
> >
> > - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/tomee/tags/tomee-1.6.0/
> >
> >
> > The vote will go for 72 hours.  Any -1s in this time will be seen as a
> positive.  The vote will keep going even if a -1 happens so we can collect
> all possible feedback and surface *all* issues.
> >
> > If we have to reroll and revote, we will fix all -1 issues and push new
> binaries and start a new 72 hour vote.  If you didn't look at the first set
> of binaries and feel compelled to vote -1, this will be seen as a negative.
>  Consider offering each voter an hour per vote on a task of their choosing
> to make up for their lost time. :)
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

Romain Manni-Bucau
+1
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau



2013/11/12 Thiago Veronezi <[hidden email]>:

> +1... It works like a charm!
>
> []s,
> Thiago.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Jeff Genender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1 ;-)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:47 PM, David Blevins <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Ok!  All dependent projects are up for votes or completed voting.
>> >
>> > I rolled a new set of binaries with Mark's proposed OpenJPA 2.3.0
>> binaries.  I ran these through the TCK and all is green.  Looks like we're
>> good to go.
>> >
>> > Maven Repo:
>> >
>> > - https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomee-120/
>> >
>> > Binaries:
>> >
>> > - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomee/staging-120/tomee-1.6.0/
>> >
>> > Tag:
>> >
>> > - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/tomee/tags/tomee-1.6.0/
>> >
>> >
>> > The vote will go for 72 hours.  Any -1s in this time will be seen as a
>> positive.  The vote will keep going even if a -1 happens so we can collect
>> all possible feedback and surface *all* issues.
>> >
>> > If we have to reroll and revote, we will fix all -1 issues and push new
>> binaries and start a new 72 hour vote.  If you didn't look at the first set
>> of binaries and feel compelled to vote -1, this will be seen as a negative.
>>  Consider offering each voter an hour per vote on a task of their choosing
>> to make up for their lost time. :)
>> >
>> >
>> > -David
>> >
>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

tikluganguly
+1


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> +1
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2013/11/12 Thiago Veronezi <[hidden email]>:
> > +1... It works like a charm!
> >
> > []s,
> > Thiago.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Jeff Genender <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 ;-)
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:47 PM, David Blevins <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ok!  All dependent projects are up for votes or completed voting.
> >> >
> >> > I rolled a new set of binaries with Mark's proposed OpenJPA 2.3.0
> >> binaries.  I ran these through the TCK and all is green.  Looks like
> we're
> >> good to go.
> >> >
> >> > Maven Repo:
> >> >
> >> > -
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomee-120/
> >> >
> >> > Binaries:
> >> >
> >> > -
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomee/staging-120/tomee-1.6.0/
> >> >
> >> > Tag:
> >> >
> >> > - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/tomee/tags/tomee-1.6.0/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The vote will go for 72 hours.  Any -1s in this time will be seen as a
> >> positive.  The vote will keep going even if a -1 happens so we can
> collect
> >> all possible feedback and surface *all* issues.
> >> >
> >> > If we have to reroll and revote, we will fix all -1 issues and push
> new
> >> binaries and start a new 72 hour vote.  If you didn't look at the first
> set
> >> of binaries and feel compelled to vote -1, this will be seen as a
> negative.
> >>  Consider offering each voter an hour per vote on a task of their
> choosing
> >> to make up for their lost time. :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -David
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

AndyG
In reply to this post by David Blevins-2
+1 On windows 32bit and 64bit (with corresponding JVMs)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

AndyG
In reply to this post by David Blevins-2
OK, I have a single test failing:

testWithTransaction(org.superbiz.injection.tx.MoviesTest)  Time elapsed: 0.285 sec  <<< ERROR!
javax.ejb.EJBException: The bean encountered a non-application exception; nested exception is:
        junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: List.size() expected:<3> but was:<6>
        at org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.BaseEjbProxyHandler.convertException(BaseEjbProxyHandler.java:403)
        at org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.BaseEjbProxyHandler.invoke(BaseEjbProxyHandler.java:307)
        at $Proxy48.call(Unknown Source)
        at org.superbiz.injection.tx.MoviesTest.testWithTransaction(MoviesTest.java:75)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
It does work for me. Only compiled on my Mac.

+1

JLouis


2013/11/12 AndyG <[hidden email]>

> OK, I have a single test failing:
>
> testWithTransaction(org.superbiz.injection.tx.MoviesTest)  Time elapsed:
> 0.285 sec  <<< ERROR!
> javax.ejb.EJBException: The bean encountered a non-application exception;
> nested exception is:
>         junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: List.size() expected:<3> but
> was:<6>
>         at
>
> org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.BaseEjbProxyHandler.convertException(BaseEjbProxyHandler.java:403)
>         at
>
> org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.BaseEjbProxyHandler.invoke(BaseEjbProxyHandler.java:307)
>         at $Proxy48.call(Unknown Source)
>         at
>
> org.superbiz.injection.tx.MoviesTest.testWithTransaction(MoviesTest.java:75)
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-TomEE-1-6-0-OpenEJB-4-6-0-staging-120-tp4666097p4666104.html
> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>



--
Jean-Louis
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

Bjorn Danielsson
In reply to this post by David Blevins-2
+1

--
Bjorn Danielsson
Cuspy Code AB


David Blevins <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ok!  All dependent projects are up for votes or completed voting.
>
> I rolled a new set of binaries with Mark's proposed OpenJPA 2.3.0 binaries.  I ran these through the TCK and all is green.  Looks like we're good to go.
>
> Maven Repo:
>
> - https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomee-120/
>
> Binaries:
>
> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomee/staging-120/tomee-1.6.0/
>
> Tag:
>
> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/tomee/tags/tomee-1.6.0/
>
>
> The vote will go for 72 hours.  Any -1s in this time will be seen as a positive.  The vote will keep going even if a -1 happens so we can collect all possible feedback and surface *all* issues.
>
> If we have to reroll and revote, we will fix all -1 issues and push new binaries and start a new 72 hour vote.  If you didn't look at the first set of binaries and feel compelled to vote -1, this will be seen as a negative.  Consider offering each voter an hour per vote on a task of their choosing to make up for their lost time. :)
>
>
> -David
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] TomEE 1.6.0 / OpenEJB 4.6.0 (staging-120)

Jim Ancona-2
+1

I've tested a couple of our apps running on these binaries. I've also
successfully tested the datasource failover functionality (TOMEE-912).

Jim

> David Blevins <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Ok!  All dependent projects are up for votes or completed voting.
>>
>> I rolled a new set of binaries with Mark's proposed OpenJPA 2.3.0 binaries.  I ran these through the TCK and all is green.  Looks like we're good to go.
>>
>> Maven Repo:
>>
>> - https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomee-120/
>>
>> Binaries:
>>
>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomee/staging-120/tomee-1.6.0/
>>
>> Tag:
>>
>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/tomee/tags/tomee-1.6.0/
>>
>>
>> The vote will go for 72 hours.  Any -1s in this time will be seen as a positive.  The vote will keep going even if a -1 happens so we can collect all possible feedback and surface *all* issues.
>>
>> If we have to reroll and revote, we will fix all -1 issues and push new binaries and start a new 72 hour vote.  If you didn't look at the first set of binaries and feel compelled to vote -1, this will be seen as a negative.  Consider offering each voter an hour per vote on a task of their choosing to make up for their lost time. :)
>>
>>
>> -David