Hello team,
as part of the effort for OAK-1855 I was looking at our release process.
While the official apache docs[0] of course don't state any project
specific task we use the check-release[1] for checking it.
(0) https://jackrabbit.apache.org/creating-releases.html
(1) https://dist.apache.org/
Currently we use junit 4.10. By looking at the release notes of 4.11[0]
there's a nice improvement on the Assume that we use, being able to
provide a custom message.
(0)
https://github.com/junit-team/junit/blob/master/doc/ReleaseNotes4.11.md#improvements-to-assert-and-assume
I find it very useful
Jumping in here, where the thread developed to a discussion about the
repository implementation of orderable Nodes.
I like to come back to the use-cases needed.
These can be summarized that I expect a certain order upon access of the Node's
NodeIterator.
In any cases I had in CQ there was never
+1
btw IMHO you need not go for a vote for incremental change in version
number of an existing library. Vote would be helpful when a new
library need to be introduced and that too in compile time
dependencies. For other case just opening a JIRA Task and making the
change against that task should b
The Buildbot has detected a restored build on builder oak-trunk-win7 while
building ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk-win7/builds/455
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source S
On 5.8.14 12:22 , Christian Keller wrote:
Jumping in here, where the thread developed to a discussion about the
repository implementation of orderable Nodes.
I like to come back to the use-cases needed.
These can be summarized that I expect a certain order upon access of the Node's
NodeItera
Hi,
The proposed update sounds good, you should go for it.
There is no need for a vote beforehand, a Jira issue with a patch attached
works just fine.
best,
alex
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Chetan Mehrotra
wrote:
> +1
>
> btw IMHO you need not go for a vote for incremental change in ve
Von: Michael Dürig
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. August 2014 13:37
An: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: How to implement a queue in Oak?
>> In any cases I had in CQ there was never a requirement of strict ordering.
>> But it was used to allow a use
Hi Davide,
> Is it right? don't we want to run the integration testing as well?
Adding the integration tests to the release checks won't hurt.
> Is this script used by jackrabbit as well or is used only by oak?
Both projects use the same script, and it would be good to not introduce
any oak speci
