5.0.10 and 5.1.1 needed to be delayed while we dealt with a critical bug, HHH-10795. I am also working with John O'Hara to fix a performance regression that was introduced into 5.0.10 and, presumably, would be in 5.1.1.
Another reason I've been holding off on releasing 5.1.1 was because of the failures for https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/8984. It is only today that we got a clean build. The last couple of days I've been furiously backporting more bugfixes for regressions and longstanding bugs. I review everything going into 5.0 and 5.1 to reduce the risk of introducing new bugs and that takes time. I have found a couple of bugs doing this and I think this time is well spent. I ran the tck last night and it passed. I started reviewing changes using japi-compliance-checker and I need to finish that. I am on track to release 5.1.1 this week. Please be patient. Regards, Gail On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Scott Marlow <smar...@redhat.com> wrote: > ORM 5.1, has an improvement for how we interact with CDI, that I really > want to finish coding the WildFly side of, so I feel the *pain* of not > having this yet. > > On 08/11/2016 02:04 PM, Gunnar Morling wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > > >> As part of bringing ORM 5.1.1+ into WF 10.1 or 11, we need to first > >> ensure that ORM 5.1.1 is completely *compatible* with ORM 5.0.x. > > > > How does this ensuring look like? Is passing the WF test suite enough, > > or are there further criteria? If identifying changes to the API is what > > you are after, tools such as Japicmp > > (see https://github.com/siom79/japicmp) may help. > > Great tool, we are using it! :) > > > > > It would be great to have some sort of formalized guideline here, > > because otherwise there's potential for frustration on both sides. E.g. > > Sanne and me are waiting for an update, as it will make our lives for > > HSEARCH/OGM much easier, whereas you may feel pressurized to do some > > update you are not 100% comfortable about). Happy about any pointers if > > there are such rules already somewhere. > > I believe that the remaining analysis is to look through the git commits > that have been merged to the ORM 5.1.x branch, that are not already > merged to ORM 5.0.x. I believe that only the git commits that Gail > hasn't yet reviewed, will be checked. I'm not sure what the count or > complexity of those git commits are that need to be checked. I'm not > sure of what else that we can do, to prove that ORM 5.1.x is ready for > WildFly 10.1/11. > > There are guideline documents that describe the agile development > process that we are following. Send me a private email if your really > interested in reading them. > > > > > That said, doing the 5.1 upgrade in WF 10.1 would seem as the sensible > > thing to me, bringing new ORM features released quite a while ago to WF > > community users and allowing to hone/harden them there as needed. So I > > still haven't lost the hope that it might be happen :) > > We already have ORM 5.0.x as the baseline that we are hardening off of. > I'm fine with bringing ORM 5.1 in, as long as it's equally as hardened. > > > > > As a user, I'd be surprised otherwise and be wondering why I had to > > resort to the ORM module ZIP (see > > http://in.relation.to/2016/07/07/updating-hibernate-orm-in-wildfly/) > > instead of WF coming with the newer version OOTB. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Gunnar > > > > > > 2016-08-11 17:05 GMT+02:00 Scott Marlow <smar...@redhat.com > > <mailto:smar...@redhat.com>>: > > > > > > > > On 08/11/2016 10:45 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > > > On 11 August 2016 at 15:19, Scott Marlow <smar...@redhat.com > <mailto:smar...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 08/11/2016 06:19 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I've been watching this: > > >>> - https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/8984 > > <https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/8984> > > >>> > > >>> And that's the reason I've been asking for a 5.1 release, as it > has > > >>> been blocked by issues for long. > > >>> > > >>> Indeed if this wasn't being tracked for 10.1 that's sad as we > need > > >>> WildFly releases with up to date versions of ORM to make better > > >>> progress on OGM and Search, I'm sorry if this wasn't clear but > the PR > > >>> has been open for a while, as was the agreement among us that > we'd aim > > >>> to have ORM 5.1 in the next WildFly version. > > >> > > >> > > >> The WildFly master branch is now for WildFly 11. Could > Search/OGM align > > >> with WF11 instead of 10.1, as the > > >> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/8984 > > <https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/8984> is finally passing, > > which is a > > >> good sign that ORM 5.1.1.Final will likely pass the WildFly test > suite, and > > >> then get merged. > > > > > > Hi Scott, > > > if you could make sure that WF 10.1 had ORM 5.1.1+ that would > greatly > > > help to have Search and OGM actually align. > > > > > > Since that PR is working fine (and the patch looks quite simple > too!) > > > may I assume we just need to put a release together in ORM, while > you > > > hold the WF train ? :) > > > > > > > As part of bringing ORM 5.1.1+ into WF 10.1 or 11, we need to first > > ensure that ORM 5.1.1 is completely *compatible* with ORM 5.0.x. > Once > > we know that, we should be ready for the > > (https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/8984 > > <https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/8984>) merge. > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sanne > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> I guess it wasn't clear "which" version is "next", but if we > > could fix > > >>> this for 10.1 that would be very nice, and match the decision of > the > > >>> platform architects. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Sanne > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 11 August 2016 at 10:18, Gail Badner <gbad...@redhat.com > > <mailto:gbad...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Ah, OK. I was confusing WildFly 10.1 with 11. I'm not sure > > about the > > >>>> version for 10.1. > > >>>> > > >>>> Scott? > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Martin Simka > > <msi...@redhat.com <mailto:msi...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Gail, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> are you sure? I'm only aware of WFLY-6930 (Upgrade Hibernate > > to 5.0.10) > > >>>>> and I'm not sure if it makes it to 10.1. Then there is > WFLY-6854 > > >>>>> (Upgrade > > >>>>> Hibernate ORM to 5.1.x) which is targeted to WildFly 11. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-6930 > > <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-6930> > > >>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-6854 > > <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-6854> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Gail Badner > > <gbad...@redhat.com <mailto:gbad...@redhat.com>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi Gunnar, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 10.1 will use ORM 5.1. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>> Gail > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Gunnar Morling > > <gun...@hibernate.org <mailto:gun...@hibernate.org>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi Scott, all, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Are there any plans to upgrade ORM in the WF 10.1 release? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I somehow assumed that 10.1 would come with ORM 5.1, but > > it's still > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> using > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 5.0.9. At least 5.0.10 would be nice if 5.1 cannot be done > > for some > > >>>>>>> reasons. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> --Gunnar > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>> hibernate-dev mailing list > > >>>>>>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > > <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>> hibernate-dev mailing list > > >>>>>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > > <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> hibernate-dev mailing list > > >>>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > > <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> hibernate-dev mailing list > > >>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists. > jboss.org> > > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev> > > >>> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > hibernate-dev mailing list > > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
