Build Update for apache/jackrabbit-oak
-
Build: #5188
Status: Fixed
Duration: 5558 seconds
Commit: 0bdc3ddca103f4d5d23ef341c03e144f190da7ca (trunk)
Author: Thomas Mueller
Message: OAK-301 : oak documentation
git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrab
On 25/02/2015 01:39, Marcel Reutegger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't see a reason why we should keep them.
>
> +1 for cleaning up.
>
+1
D.
Hi
I had an offline discussion with Francesco regarding the implementation of the
revision for the continuable session in the OAK API and read through the
comments in [1].
Some additional comments to what Alex mentioned yesterday:
I like the idea of separating the internal revision from the “e
Sorted out my lucene version issues, so not getting that exception any
more, but still not getting any query results. Still seeing multiple
of these in the logs;
23:55:14,288 TRACE lucene.IndexDefinition.collectIndexRules() - line
519 [0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1] - Found rule 'IndexRule: ka:asset' for NodeTy
+1 clean up
On 25/02/15 10:03, "Alex Parvulescu" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I noticed we have some old unused branches on our svn repo [0], some are
>candidates for cleanup: 0.6, 0.7, jackrabbit-oak-core-0.15, pre-0.4.
>
>what do others think, can we clean this up?
>
>thanks,
>alex
>
>[0] http://svn.apache.
Hi,
I don't see a reason why we should keep them.
+1 for cleaning up.
Regards
Marcel
On 25/02/15 10:03, "Alex Parvulescu" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I noticed we have some old unused branches on our svn repo [0], some are
>candidates for cleanup: 0.6, 0.7, jackrabbit-oak-core-0.15, pre-0.4.
>
>what do o
Hi,
I noticed we have some old unused branches on our svn repo [0], some are
candidates for cleanup: 0.6, 0.7, jackrabbit-oak-core-0.15, pre-0.4.
what do others think, can we clean this up?
thanks,
alex
[0] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jackrabbit/oak/branches/