2010/1/21 Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
>
> On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
>
>> CAY-1368 is now fixed, other issues will probably do this week.
>>
>
> The fix seems to have some global consequences (unsurprisingly, as it
> changes some fundamental methods in DbEntity and ObjEntity). I haven't
> looked at the details, but we do have hudson failures (which I see you are
> fixing now), and also the test cases do not check that the results are
> correct (i.e. prefetching is actually working as expected vs. simply not
> throwing an exception). I am a bit uneasy about including such a
> consequential change in 3.0 at this point. Do you think there is a more
> localized workaround, even if it is a hack, for the stable branch? But maybe
> I am too paranoid.
>
>
The fix is not fundamental at all - it only changes path iterator type
everywhere so that it treats left joins as well.
As for new unit tests - yeah, had no time today to create deep tests, just
checked the generated SQL myself. Maybe will change that later..
Test failures is just JDK5 craziness (as you can see, it's OK on JDK6).
While a complex typecast structure compiles successfully it has
java.lang.Errors in runtime. Changed that to something easier...
>
> may I ask that you redeploy artifacts after EJBQL issues are finished and
>> we test it again?
>>
>
> Good question. I'd say it depends on what the problem is and whether there
> is a problem. (Do you have time to look at that BTW?) Also we have a bunch
> of EJBQL holes plugged on trunk already, but not on 3.0 (most notably
> CAY-1069, but also CAY-1366 now in progress). So we have a choice of further
> delaying 3.0, treating those as "known limitations", or something in between
> - fixing them in 3.0.1...
>
> Based on the past history of major releases (1.0, 1.1, 1.2) I was a bit
> skeptical about us being able to go from Alpha to final in just a couple of
> months. The thing just has to settle down and stabilize. Which means
> responding to bug reports for some time and releasing as many RC's as
> needed. The rate of new Jiras coming in clearly indicates that we need more
> time, unless we adopt a different definition of a final release (N.0 is
> released as "final", but it is really alpha, with fixes being done as N.0.1,
> N.0.2, etc.)
>
> I tend to agree that we need to recall the vote and redo the files to
> include your fixes (which may not save us from RC3, unless the bug reports
> suddenly stop flowing)... And maybe also include CAY-1069...
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
Agreed
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jan 20 2010 - 17:38:01 EST