Hi Julian Given the fact that with the CVE announced yesterday, we encouraged everyone using 1.12.0 - 1.22.0 to upgrade to 1.24.0, your second variant (releasing 1.26.0 shortly and branching 1.24.0 instead) would feel a bit better to me... for the sake of communication consistency.
That's as far as the security area is concerned the only significant diff between 1.22 and 1.24. Kind regards Angela ________________________________ From: Julian Reschke <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:44 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Angela Schreiber <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Branch 1.22.0 On 29.01.2020 16:25, Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Julian > > Not sure I got the explanation regarding 'why not branching 1.24.0' in > relation to the required changes regarding OAK-7947. According to jira that > issue got fix in > 1.12.0<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+OAK+AND+fixVersion+%3D+1.12.0>, > right? So isn't the same 'flip lazy loading of lucene index' needed > irrespective of whether we branch 1.22.0 or 1.24.0? And wouldn't the same > 'newer' question you explained below also apply when branching 1.22.0? > > I guess I am missing one piece in that reasoning... otherwise I don't have a > strong preference and would be find with the proposal. > > Angela The default would need to be flipped in any case, right. The only difference is that if we released 1.24.1 instead if 1.22.1, users of 1.24.0 might incorrectly assume that this is a release they should upgrade to. That of course could be addressed by quickly releasing 1.26.0 as well, but as we just released 1.24.0 yesterday... Best regards, Julian
