Nope
On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Any objections to me syncing master branch out to metamodel later today?
>
> --
> st...@hibernate.org
> http://hibernate.org
> ___
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
On Aug 3, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> As I said before, the problem is that @FailureExpectedWithNewMetamodel is not
> honored by BaseCoreFunctionalTestCase when
> an error occurs in the setup (BeforeClass handlers). We could try to address
> this in BaseCoreFunctionalTestCase,
On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:54 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I'm seeing some more failures today using
>> -Dhibernate.test.new_metadata_mappings=true
>> -Dhibernate.test.validatefailureexpected=true:
>> - org.hibernate.test.annotations.lob.VersionedLobTest FAILED
>> - org.hibernate.test.ann
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> On 2 Jan 2012, at 4:10 PM, John Verhaeg wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:26 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>>
>>>> When hibernate.test.validatefailureexpected is false (the default), the
>>>
On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:26 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>> When hibernate.test.validatefailureexpected is false (the default), the
>> result from FailureExpected tests is simply ignored.
>
> :-(
Hardy, I'm assuming from your frown, you don't like this for some reason. This
is the expected behav
On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why 2 merges?
I was just thinking it might help reduce the number of potential conflicts
during the first merge. If not, then one is fine in my mind.
___
hibernate-dev mailing l
+1 for early merges and Hardy's suggestion to merge first w/o combining test &
matrix, then again after combining.
On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>> Would we merge the directories on each branch and then merge branch
I'd agree. It would seem strange to assume the lack of inheritance in this
case and have to annotate multi-tenancy throughout the chain of associations.
On May 15, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Multi-tenant setups sometimes have data that is shared between the
> tenants (codec tab
Definitely seems reasonable for now, especially considering this will be our
first implementation. I guess I'm also assuming we have no user requests that
would oppose this decision.
On May 15, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> My current thinking here is that the discrimination would
d considering it is quite late evening already for Strong. Strong, what do
> you think?
>
>
> On Tue 27 Mar 2012 08:20:43 AM CDT, John Verhaeg wrote:
>> I'm good with Thursday, too, but it would be nice if it was at least one
>> hour later.
>>
>> On Mar 2
dont think doing it at 8am our time (US Central) is too
> bad considering it is quite late evening already for Strong. Strong, what do
> you think?
>
>
> On Tue 27 Mar 2012 08:20:43 AM CDT, John Verhaeg wrote:
>> I'm good with Thursday, too, but it would be nice if it wa
I'm good with Thursday, too, but it would be nice if it was at least one hour
later.
On Mar 27, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Strong Liu wrote:
> okay, let's move it to thursday if no objections from others,
>
> moving this 2.5 hours later means 11:30pm for me
> -
> Best Regards,
>
I'm great with that.
On Mar 27, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am fine with moving the meeting 2 1/2 hours later. That's what we used to
> do anyways
> and it worked quite well imo.
>
> --Hardy
>
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>> I got dropped
On Mar 7, 2012, at 8:19 PM, Strong Liu wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>> Speaking of which, is everyone else seeing tests in
>> hibernate-infinispan taking many many minutes to run?
>
>
> yes, it reallly takes some time
I've been seeing that for a while, too.
I probably don't understand the complexities with this, but wouldn't the ID
values in AA have to be completely independent of the values in A?
> On 28 févr. 2012, at 17:59, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>> Another discrepancy between hbm.xml and annotations currently is the
>> definition of natural i
On Dec 20, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Which brings us to... do we really want to not allow Closed issues to be
> reopened? I mean actually remove the transition? Or do we just want to
> say that as a standard procedure we do not reopen Closed issues?
I think we should not all
I think the immutability Gail was talking about only applied to classes used
internally, not anything configurable by developers. The new design should
allow for exactly what you're looking for wrt alternative deployment mechanisms.
On Jun 23, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
> Would be coo
Seems to make sense from my perspective, but I'm the least familiar with this
code.
On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> I guess one thing I am interested in is whether you see an issue in this
> style of process with annotations. On the HBM side of things, this will
> work out
What's the implication to the logged message content behind using a class name
vs. a subsystem name as a category? Would it be correct to assume the class
name/line number would only appear in the message if you use the class name as
a category? Or is that something more tied to the underlying
It's not a configuration issue, rather a preference setting to turn off the
warning about cyclic dependencies: Preferences > Java > Compilter > Building >
Build Path Problems > Circular Dependencies > Warning
On Mar 31, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> 2011/3/31 Steve Ebersole :
>>
>
All logging-related changes are checked into master.
JPAV
___
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
The first 2 sound great to me - both match how transactions work in Teiid.
I'd also agree with option a) on the third.
JPAV
___
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2010, at 11:07 am, John Verhaeg wrote:
>> I'm currently going through the codebase trying to convert our use of slf4j
>> for logging to jboss-logging. In doing so, I've noticed that all of t
I'm currently going through the codebase trying to convert our use of slf4j for
logging to jboss-logging. In doing so, I've noticed that all of the current
loggers are named using the package-qualified name of the enclosing class that
define them. JBoss-logging offers a similar concept in that
24 matches
Mail list logo
