Hi,
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Based on that I already laid out a plan for an Oak 1.0 release [1] and
in parallel we should proceed to cut a stable Jackrabbit 2.8 release
(release plan to follow).
As discussed, we're getting close to cutting
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm thinking of trying to implement one or two of these alternatives
within the next few weeks, and cut Jackrabbit 2.8 based on that work
and including something like Oak 0.16 as a beta feature. Assuming that
Hi,
g) Or as a last resort, abandon the idea of a joint deployment
package. Jackrabbit Classic and Oak would be shipped in separate
deployment artifacts.
+1, I would also prefer this option.
alex
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
g) ...Or as a last resort, abandon the idea of a joint deployment
package. Jackrabbit Classic and Oak would be shipped in separate
deployment artifacts
Does this have impact on how people can migrate existing
Am 17.01.2014 um 11:01 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
g) ...Or as a last resort, abandon the idea of a joint deployment
package. Jackrabbit Classic and Oak would be shipped in separate
On 15.1.14 7:35 , Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
a) Upgrade Jackrabbit Classic to use Lucene 4. As discussed earlier
(http://markmail.org/message/nv5jeeoda7qe5qen) this is pretty hard,
and it's questionable whether the benefits are worth the effort.
-0, too little benefit for the effort it would
Sorry for disturbing you,i want to know that does the jackrabbit support the
android now or in the future?
zhouhuakang...@gmail.com
From: Michael Dürig
Date: 2014-01-16 16:51
To: dev
Subject: Re: Roadmap for Jackrabbit 2.x and 3.0
On 15.1.14 7:35 , Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
a) Upgrade
Is there a guide for how to migrate from jackrabbit 2.* to oak?
On 16 January 2014 18:51, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote:
On 15.1.14 7:35 , Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
a) Upgrade Jackrabbit Classic to use Lucene 4. As discussed earlier
(http://markmail.org/message/nv5jeeoda7qe5qen)
Hi,
g) Or as a last resort, abandon the idea of a joint deployment
package. Jackrabbit Classic and Oak would be shipped in separate
deployment artifacts.
this is my preferred option. this would also send out the message that
Oak is meant to replace Jackrabbit 2.x.
I'd keep the Jackrabbit
Hi,
c) Ship the jackrabbit deployment packages without Lucene integration
for Oak. This would allow people to start playing with Oak in their
existing deployments, but require some deployment changes for full Oak
functionality.
+1 I think this could be a way ...
f) Adjust the Jackrabbit
Hi,
Let's pick this up again!
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
* Jackrabbit 3.0: Early next year, after the 2.6 and 2.x branches have
been created, we'd replace the current trunk with an Oak-based JCR
implementation.
As mentioned above, instead
Hi
While (f-OSGi) has an appeal to me and think should be done in any case, I
would think (g-separate) is the right way to go to prevent complexity with
IMVHO little benefit.
Just my CHF 0.05
Regards
Felix
Am 15.01.2014 um 12:35 schrieb Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com:
Hi,
Let's
Hi,
It's been a while since we branched Jackrabbit 2.6 and the trunk has
already evolved since then, so I think it's time for us to start
cutting our next series of unstable 2.7.x releases. Since I'd like to
have Oak 0.7 going out next week and we need a Jackrabbit release for
that, I propose
Hi ...
Sounds very good to me :-)
greets
claus
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an early draft of how this could work out in terms of the
Jackrabbit roadmap:
Seems like we have fairly good consensus on the big picture, so let's
start laying some more concrete plans!
* Jackrabbit
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
* Jackrabbit 2.6: We target at releasing a stable Jackrabbit 2.6.0
version sometime around the end of this year. As usual, we'll
Hi Jukka and team,
I've opened 3 issues [1] [2] [3] (one bug, 2 improvements) with
associated patches and would like to see them included in the upcoming
release if possible. Could someone review the patches ?
Best regards,
Cédric
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3485
[2]
Sounds like a plan ;-) +1
Michael
On 23.10.12 15:03, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On oak-dev@ we were just discussing about the future of Oak and how
it'll relate to Jackrabbit in general. The emerging consensus seems to
be that we should keep Oak as a part of Jackrabbit and have Jackrabbit
3.0
+1
Cheers,
Alex
On 23.10.2012, at 16:03, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On oak-dev@ we were just discussing about the future of Oak and how
it'll relate to Jackrabbit in general. The emerging consensus seems to
be that we should keep Oak as a part of Jackrabbit and have
Hi,
On oak-dev@ we were just discussing about the future of Oak and how
it'll relate to Jackrabbit in general. The emerging consensus seems to
be that we should keep Oak as a part of Jackrabbit and have Jackrabbit
3.0 be based on Oak.
Here's an early draft of how this could work out in terms of
sounds good to me ..
+1
greets
claus
I like it ;-)
+1
Bart
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On oak-dev@ we were just discussing about the future of Oak and how
it'll relate to Jackrabbit in general. The emerging consensus seems to
be that we should keep Oak as a part of
22 matches
Mail list logo
