Hi,

This sounds good to me. It wasn't immediately clear to me why the branch
would be from the 1.22.0 release instead of 1.24.0, but I think I
understand now. One of the goals of the 1.22 branch would be to replace
and retire the 1.10 branch, which means the releases from the 1.22 branch
should provide a smooth upgrade path from 1.10.x releases. Hence, the
proposed flip of the default for lazy index loading. I think it's important
this is documented clearly.

Regards
 Marcel

On 29.01.20, 15:03, "Julian Reschke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> When we introduced the new release/branching strategy last March, it was
> clear that we might have to create branches once incompatible changes
> happen.
> 
> Now is the time. (Well, soon).
> 
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7358> will make incompatible
> changes (so that we can compile & run on Java 14). I therefore propose
> to create a branch, from which we can continue to cut releases that are
> fully compatible with 1.22.0.
> 
> The good news is that we have confirmed that 1.22.* can be used as
> drop-in replacement for 1.10.*, thus at the same time (or close to it)
> we could retire 1.10.
> 
> The only issue we found was due to slightly changed system behaviour
> when lazy loading of Lucene index files is in effect. I would therefore
> propose to disable that feature in the first release from that branch
> (see <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7947>, there's a system
> property for this, we would just have to flip the default value).
>
> (And yes, this proposal is equivalent to just replay *any* change made
> in trunk to 1.10.*)
> 
> The concrete steps would be:
> 
> - create the branch based on the tag 1.22.0 - flip the default for lazy
> loading of Lucene index files - backport selected changes from trunk
> (such as related to yesterday's CVE) - release 1.22.1 - (later on)
> retire 1.10.*
> 
> As to why not to branch based on 1.24.0: I'd like to avoid any confusion
> about what is "newer". If we released 1.24.1 people might think this is
> something to upgrade from 1.24.0 from (and that would be incorrect due
> to the change related to OAK-7947).

Reply via email to