Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
Upgrading lucene to version 6 would probably warrant using 2.0, but that's not ready yet for 1.8? On 6 December 2017 at 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote: > I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version > 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't > think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users. > > -- -Tor
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
On 2017-12-06 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote: I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users. +1
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
Hi, > Upgrading lucene to version 6 would probably warrant using 2.0, but that's > not ready yet for 1.8? No, it's not yet ready for 1.8. Regards, Thomas
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
On 06/12/17 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote: I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users. +1 Regards Marcel
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
On 2017-12-06 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote: > I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version > 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't > think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users. > +1 2017-12-06 12:56 GMT+02:00 Marcel Reutegger : > On 06/12/17 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote: > >> I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify >> version 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing >> process, I don't think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big >> impact on users. >> > > +1 > > Regards > Marcel >
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
On 06/12/2017 09:39, Thomas Mueller wrote: > I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version 2.0. > The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't think > this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users. +1 On 06/12/2017 09:41, Torgeir Veimo wrote: > Upgrading lucene to version 6 would probably warrant using 2.0, but that's > not ready yet for 1.8? Yes that would IMO justify a major version change as it will probably impact considerably an upgrade/update process. D.
Re: Oak (1.8) and Jackrabbit (2.16) stable releases plan
On 18/10/2017 11:12, Davide Giannella wrote: > # 21st December > > Release Oak 1.7.14. This will technically be our latest unstable cut as > there's the winter break in the middle and we won't have full coverage > from all of us > > # 15th January > > Branch and Release Oak 1.8.0 (or 2.0.0 see other thread). > > After each stable release the effort should therefore move on the > stabilisation of the stable release branches of which we'll go for > releases on demand basis depending on what/if fixed. No more unstable > cut for now. Slight change of plans as we skipped a load. #21st Dec: Release Oak 1.7.13 #8th Dec: Branch and Release Oak 1.8.0 Any concerns please speak up. Cheers Davide
Re: Oak (1.8) and Jackrabbit (2.16) stable releases plan
On 06/12/2017 11:14, Davide Giannella wrote: > #21st Dec: Release Oak 1.7.13 Apologies for the noise. My bad. 18th December. D.
Re: Oak (1.8) and Jackrabbit (2.16) stable releases plan
On 2017-12-06 12:17, Davide Giannella wrote: On 06/12/2017 11:14, Davide Giannella wrote: #21st Dec: Release Oak 1.7.13 Apologies for the noise. My bad. 18th December. D. Cut Dec 18, release Dec 21, I assume?
Experimental build for Oak on Windows
Hi, I set up yesterday an experimental build for Oak on Windows https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit-Oak-Windows/ It _seems_ to be working fine, but I've marked it as experimental given the historical stability issues with ASF Windows bots. Feel free to double-check with it in case you have doubts regarding the status of the build on Windows. I'll keep it alive for a couple of weeks to assess its stability, and then we can discuss whether we want to promote it to a 'proper' job that we actually pay attention to and that sends notifications. Thanks, Robert
Re: Oak (1.8) and Jackrabbit (2.16) stable releases plan
On 06/12/17 12:14, Davide Giannella wrote: #8th Dec: Branch and Release Oak 1.8.0 that should probably read 8th of January, unless you'll find a way traveling back in time ;) Regards Marcel
BUILD FAILURE: Jackrabbit Oak - Build # 1058 - Failure
The Apache Jenkins build system has built Jackrabbit Oak (build #1058) Status: Failure Check console output at https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1058/ to view the results. Changes: [catholicon] OAK-7007: Test failure: FacetTest.testFacetsNA() The failure happened when the test ran after ResultSizeTest. That test temporarily disabled globalLucene index which was affecting FacetTest#testFacetsNA test. Now, we'd reindex after that temporary disabled globalLucene is reset. Test results: All tests passed