OK, at least it's clear what the situation is :-)
With my Apache hat on, here is my +1 to the 2.3.2 release, even with
this issue the release is fine.
We'll fix this in 2.3.3 ;-)
Cheers
Alessio
On 01/20/2011 02:11 PM, Jim Ma wrote:
Thanks Dan. My fix to CXF-3209 introduced these regression failures
. I've reverted these changes in 2.3.x branch . I'll look this issue
again and provide some better test for it .
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Kulp<dk...@apache.org> wrote:
I want to give Jim a bit more time to investigate what is causing the
failures. I chatted with him a bit on IRC and I'm not exactly sure how the
test is SUPPOSED to work at all so it's hard to say what is going on.
THAT said, -1's on release votes are not a veto. Thus, as release manager,
it's my discretion as to how to handle the -1. My gut feeling, right now,
would be to release 2.3.2 "as is" as the standalone JAX-WS TCK does pass and
thus all of OUR claims are OK. Once we get a handle on the J2EE level
things, we can quickly spin a 2.3.3. I really have no issues with a "release
often" approach.
That said, I do want to give Jim a little more time to look into it. Since
there is still 20ish hours left on the vote, it's not something I'll commit to
either way RIGHT NOW. It may end being something JBoss can work around and
we won't need to worry about it. (that has happened a couple times in the
past)
Dan
On Wednesday 19 January 2011 10:59:03 pm Glen Mazza wrote:
I don't think a new vote is necessary, because as stated the vote covers
both portions. So everyone has voted +1 and +1 up to Jim.
To be valid, a veto must have a justifiable reason, and Jim certainly
does have one for CXF 2.3.2 but not CXF XJC 2.3.2, so the latter can
still proceed (if desirable). I would very much like to get CXF XJC
2.3.2 fixed so I don't have to keep taking out the JAXB 2.2 libraries
from my JDK when I try to make a build. That said, I suspect Dan
wouldn't want to release one without the other, it's just that a second
vote isn't needed IMO.
Glen
On 19.01.2011 22:37, Willem Jiang wrote:
Maybe we can consider to release XJC 2.3.2 as it doesn't relate to TCK
failures. And we don't need to cut new version of XJC 2.3.2 again.
Can we start a new vote for CXF XJC 2.3.2 ?
Willem
On 1/20/11 11:02 AM, Jim Ma wrote:
I have to vote -1 for this release.
The new changes in tagged CXF 2.3.2 introduced several JEE6 TCK
regression failures . I am looking for a quick fix for these failures.
Jim
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Eric
Johnson<emjohn...@fusesource.com> wrote:
+1
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Christian Schneider
<ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
+1
Christian
Am 18.01.2011 05:26, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
We've had a busy 8 weeks or so despite the holidays. We've
managed to
fix over 75 JIRA issues since 2.3.1 which is quite remarkable .
This also
fixes a bunch of OSGi related issues that are needed for
Camel and ServiceMix.
Note: this vote also includes a release of the cxf-xjc-utils to
fix a
bunch of issues that were resolved there.
List of issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=123159
21&styleName=Text&projectId=12310511&Create=Create
The Maven staging areas are at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecxf-041/
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecxf-042/
The distributions are in:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecxf-042/o
rg/apache/cxf/apache-cxf/2.3.2/
This release is tagged at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/tags/cxf-2.3.2
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/xjc-utils/tags/xjc-utils-2.3.2/
The vote will be open for 72 hours.
Here is my +1.
--
Daniel Kulp
dk...@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
