Re: Oak modularisation unstable roadmap ?

Hi, I dont really care where the API is, however IIUC Oak 1.6 needs JR API 2.14.2 (based on Slings oak.txt provisioning model) Oak 1.7 nees JR API 2.15.5 (based on my patch to make Sling work on Oak 1.7.8) To make the patch work with Oak 1.6 would mean patching the JR API 2.14.2, which is a sta

Re: Oak modularisation unstable roadmap ?

Hi Ian Would you mind sharing your thoughts and why you think moving it to Jackrabbit API is not an option? As far as I remember the Sling community has been particularly vocal about NOT introducing dependencies to any particular JCR implementation. With this history in mind it would look a lo

Re: Naming convention for unstable releases

On 17/10/2017 08:58, Robert Munteanu wrote: > I'm +0 on such a change as I would expect users to actually read the > fine web pages at [1]. > > If we go through with this, I'd to with something less scary that > experimental. Maybe '-dev' or '-unstable'? +1 for Robert's points therefore is a +0 fo

Re: Naming convention for unstable releases

On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 07:28 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > Should we consider to label them accordingly in the future? Such as > >1.9.0-EXPERIMENTAL I'm +0 on such a change as I would expect users to actually read the fine web pages at [1]. If we go through with this, I'd to with something l

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

Hi Angela, I used semantic versioning just to get a definition of versioning, I guess that the question should have been: Will oak 2.0 be backward compatible with oak 1.6 ? Thanks, Andrei > On Oct 17, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Angela Schreiber > wrote: > > hi andrei > > this has nothing to do wit

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

hi andrei this has nothing to do with semantic versioning regards angela From: Andrei Kalfas mailto:akal...@adobe.com.INVALID>> Reply-To: mailto:oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org>> Date: Tuesday 17 October 2017 09:18 To: "oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org" mailto:

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

Hi, 2.0 as in semantic versioning [1] is not backward compatible with 1.x. Will it be the case ? Thanks, Andrei [1] http://semver.org/ > On Oct 17, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Angela Schreiber > wrote: > > Hi Davide > > Sure... I already started doing so and there is a dedica

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

Hi Davide Sure... I already started doing so and there is a dedicated JIRA ticket for that matter. Feel free to contribute if you spot something that is missing or misleading. Angela On 16/10/17 13:36, "Davide Giannella" wrote: >On 13/10/2017 16:01, Matt Ryan wrote: >> Makes good sense to me.