The Buildbot has detected a restored build on builder oak-trunk while building
ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk/builds/615
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-vm_ubuntu
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source Stamp:
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk-win7 while
building ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk-win7/builds/667
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source Stam
sure,
sorry for the inconvenience
De : Marcel Reutegger
Envoyé : mercredi 8 octobre 2014 17:22
À : oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Objet : Re: Oak + Sling
Hi,
you should ask this question on the sling list: d...@sling.apache.org
Regards
Marcel
On 08/10/1
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/666
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source S
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk-win7 while
building ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk-win7/builds/665
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source Stam
Hi,
you should ask this question on the sling list: d...@sling.apache.org
Regards
Marcel
On 08/10/14 16:20, "TALHAOUI Mohamed" wrote:
>Hi there,
>
>Still working on a POC based on Oak for my company.
>
>I would need to run Oak on a OSGI environment and have a REST api.
>Sling seems to be the
Hi there,
Still working on a POC based on Oak for my company.
I would need to run Oak on a OSGI environment and have a REST api.
Sling seems to be the perfect fit for this.
What is the status of Sling running on Oak ? (see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-2788)
Is there a documentatio
my bad, forgot to commit a change in oak-run. already fixed...
regards
marcel
On 08/10/14 15:26, "build...@apache.org" wrote:
>The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk while
>building ASF Buildbot.
>Full details are available at:
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk/bu
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/662
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source S
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk while building ASF
Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk/builds/612
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-vm_ubuntu
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source Stamp: [b
Thanks a lot!
On 08/10/14 14:36, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 08/10/14 14:20, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote:
>>because we don't have a 1.2 version ;)
>>
>>I'll create one in JIRA and update unresolved issues.
>
>Done. Please change the fix version back to 1.1.x when you
>resolve an issue cur
On 2014-10-08 14:20, Marcel Reutegger wrote:
Hi,
On 08/10/14 14:05, "Angela Schreiber" wrote:
Is the 1.2 version just missing?
It is missing and I agree with should have one to indicate what we
want to implement for the upcoming stable release.
And why are all open issues scheduled for 1.1
Hi,
On 08/10/14 14:20, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote:
>because we don't have a 1.2 version ;)
>
>I'll create one in JIRA and update unresolved issues.
Done. Please change the fix version back to 1.1.x when you
resolve an issue currently scheduled for 1.2. Also feel free
to set it back to 1.1.1 when y
AFAIR we added 2.0 before the 1.0 release as a bucket for everything not
going into 1.0 without thinking to much about it. Now that we adapted
the stable/unstable scheme we should probably clean this up:
- create an 1.2 version and schedule issues either against 1.2 or 1.1.1.
- remove 2.0 and
Hi,
On 08/10/14 14:05, "Angela Schreiber" wrote:
>Is the 1.2 version just missing?
It is missing and I agree with should have one to indicate what we
want to implement for the upcoming stable release.
>And why are all open issues scheduled for 1.1.1?
because we don't have a 1.2 version ;)
I'l
Hi Devs
I am bit confused with the set of fix versions that we currently
have defined in our Oak Jira.
What we currently have is:
- 1.0
- 1.0.x for releases of the 1.0 branch
- 1.1.0 for the 1.1.0 release
- 1.1.1
- 2.0
What I am actually missing is 1.2.0 for everything that should
go into the
The Buildbot has detected a restored build on builder oak-trunk while building
ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk/builds/611
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-vm_ubuntu
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source Stamp:
After discussing it Tomomaso offline would be going with option #3.
Opened OAK-2168 to track changes required in SolrIndex to support
AdvanceQueryIndex and later AggregateIndex
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Chetan Mehrotra
wrote:
> Hi Tommaso,
>
>>also Solr doesn't support aggr
Failure was because build bot picked only one change. For the build to
pass all 3 changes need to be picked up
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:10 PM, wrote:
> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk while building
> ASF Buildbot.
> Full details are available at:
>
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk while building ASF
Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk/builds/610
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-vm_ubuntu
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source Stamp: [b
Hi Tommaso,
>also Solr doesn't support aggregation
Is it that Solr does not support it. Or it supports but not configured
to do so at runtime?
Further there is a third option also of
3. Not wrapping the SolrIndex with AggregateIndex in test.
With #3 all testcase pass for now I can move on with
Looks like an issue with the MapDB implementation. I introduced
this dependency as a short term fix for OAK-1768.
My plan is to remove MapDB again once OAK-2131 is done.
Regards
Marcel
On 08/10/14 10:23, "Michael Dürig" wrote:
>
>Didn't see this before. Note the cause is an
>ArrayIndexOutOfBo
Hi Chetan,
I think no. 1 is definitely the best, also Solr doesn't support aggregation
at the moment, so it'd be a good change to do that.
Regards,
Tommaso
2014-10-08 11:17 GMT+02:00 Chetan Mehrotra :
> For OAK-2119 I had modified AggregateIndex to implement
> AdvanceQueryIndex. This was done
For OAK-2119 I had modified AggregateIndex to implement
AdvanceQueryIndex. This was done with the assumption that it is only
used by LuceneIndex. However Solr testcase do check against
AggregateIndex (though it is not configured for that at runtime) and
they fail with this change
Now I have two o
On 8.10.14 10:46 , Marius Petria wrote:
But is it guaranteed that all events dispatched as local events have the
user data filled if available?
Yes. In fact if you access the user data without first checking whether
the event is local (JackrabbitEvent.isExternal) Oak will log a warning:
"Ev
On 10/7/14, 11:27 PM, "Michael Dürig" wrote:
>
>
>On 7.10.14 10:30 , Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>> 2014-10-07 18:15 GMT+02:00 Rob Ryan :
>>
>>> I'm not so sure about the conclusion that because the events of
>>>interest
>>> are local you can safely use userData. IIUC under heavy load local
>>>event
Didn't see this before. Note the cause is an
ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException. Marcel, any idea?
Michael
fuzzTest[1](org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.core.RootFuzzIT) Time elapsed:
32.7 sec <<< ERROR!
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.api.CommitFailedException: OakOak0001: Failed
to merge changes to the u
27 matches
Mail list logo
