Hi, On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > As discussed earlier and mentioned again by Roy, the Oak name is a bit > troublesome for more general branding, which reinforces the point that > we'll use it as a codename for the development effort and decide later > on whether to brand the result as "Jackrabbit 3" or something else.
As discussed last week in Berlin, with 6+ months since we started the Oak effort it's probably now time to revisit this issue. Basically the question is about how we want to brand and manage the Oak effort going forward. It looks like we have two main alternatives to choose from: 1) The Oak codebase will become Jackrabbit 3.0 sometime next year replacing the current Jackrabbit trunk, and the Oak codename will gradually be dropped. Current Jackrabbit trunk will move to a separate 2.x branch where it will remain in maintenance mode until everyone has had a chance to migrate to Jackrabbit 3.x. Jackrabbit 3.0 will no longer strive to be a "fully conforming" reference implementation of JCR. 2) We spin off the Oak effort to a new Apache project (Apache Oak, or something else [1]) with its own goals and community; of course with a high priority to make migration from Jackrabbit as easy as possible. Jackrabbit will remain the "fully conforming" JCR implementation, with Jackrabbit 3.0 most likely becoming the reference implementation of JSR 333. Over time the focus of Jackrabbit may shift to become more of a JCR "commons" place where people collaborate on things like the JCR remoting layers, OCM, the test suite, and of course the reference implementation. WDYT? [1] When I asked, the early feedback from tradema...@apache.org about the "Oak" codename was that something like "Apache Oak" would likely be OK, but that we probably wouldn't be able to prevent anyone else from starting a competing "Oak" project. Not sure if that's a problem in practice. BR, Jukka Zitting
