Hello Team,
keep checking the build on travis,
since build https://travis-ci.org/apache/jackrabbit-oak/builds/37917407
we have a pedantic failure. Didn't check what.
The updated list of failing tests and when they occurred is in
https://gist.github.com/davidegiannella/295fdf7760bef2e1d415
we have a pedantic failure. Didn't check what.
should be good now, sorry for the noise.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org
wrote:
Hello Team,
keep checking the build on travis,
since build https://travis-ci.org/apache/jackrabbit-oak/builds/37917407
we
May be better to exclude all under osgi-conf from license check
excludeosgi-conf/**/*.*/exclude
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:39 PM, alexparvule...@apache.org wrote:
Author: alexparvulescu
Date: Wed Oct 15 08:09:01 2014
New Revision: 1631967
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1631967
Does the OSGi config allow comments? If it does, we could simply add
the license header to those files...
Regards
Marcel
On 15/10/14 10:22, Chetan Mehrotra chetan.mehro...@gmail.com wrote:
May be better to exclude all under osgi-conf from license check
excludeosgi-conf/**/*.*/exclude
Chetan
Hi,
Guys, thanks for the suggestions!
May be better to exclude all under osgi-conf from license check
I did not want to extend the ignores more than they need to, so I would
leave them as is for now.
Does the OSGi config allow comments?
Not sure, I haven't seen license headers in config files
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/695
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source
Running
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.LucenePropertyIndexTest
Tests run: 11, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1, Time elapsed: 3.498 sec
FAILURE!
sortQueriesWithDate(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.LucenePropertyIndexTest)
Time elapsed: 0.347 sec FAILURE!
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Alex Parvulescu
alex.parvule...@gmail.com wrote:
[/test/n53, /test/n60, /test/n71,
/test/n38, /test/n44, /test/n63, /test/n90, /test/n25, /test/n82,
/test/n69, /test/n0, /test/n84, /test/n91, /test/n39, /test/n70, /test/n86,
/test/n96, /test/n21, /test/n72,
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/696
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source
hi aman
it depends a bit on how you want your version content to look like and what
you want to restore... the file or the content node?
second you have to look at the OnParentVersion flag defined with the
node type definition which - as you can see in JSR 283 - defines what
happens to the child
Thanks for the response,
Actually I have a file node. To that file node, I have added two mixinNodes,
one is mix:versionable and the other is some custom node type.
Now I want all the properties of nt:file as well as nt:resource to be
versioned, including jcr:data, and the properties from the
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/699
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source
What should be the output with
/a {v: [1, 10]}
/b {v: [2,9]}
Shouldn't it be /a because its encountered first for both ascending and
descending?
Hi,
should we not check what the spec says about sorting MVPs? (and if allowed:
model the behaviour after JR2?)
Cheers
Michael
On 15 Oct 2014, at 16:20, Amit Jain am...@apache.org wrote:
What should be the output with
/a {v: [1, 10]}
/b {v: [2,9]}
Shouldn't it be /a because its
i think it should... if i am not mistaken neither nt:file
nor nt:resource specifies another OPV... but you may want
to check again in order to be sure...
regards
angela
On 15/10/14 15:02, Aman Arora aar...@manh.com wrote:
Thanks for the response,
Actually I have a file node. To that file node,
Hi Team,
I need to update documentation for Lucene based property indexes. This
is currently in trunk and is planned to be part of Oak 1.0.8. So while
updating the docs should
1. Update in trunk and then merge to master but deploy to
website from trunk
2. OR Update in trunk and mention that
Hi,
I wonder if there is a bug in the StableRevisionComparator. It uses
Revision.compareRevisionTimeThenClusterId, which doesn't take the branch
flag into account. I would probably use the following instead:
/**
* Compare all components of two revisions.
*
* @param other the other revision
Thanks Angela.
You were right. On adding a mixinNode to [nt:file], all the sub-nodes are also
versioned.
Regards,
Aman Arora
-Original Message-
From: Angela Schreiber [mailto:anch...@adobe.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:27 PM
To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re:
18 matches
Mail list logo
