Intent to backport OAK-9785

Hello I intend to backport "OAK-9785 - Tar SegmentStore can be corrupted during compaction" to the 1.22 branch. The fix hardens TAR compaction by aborting it cleanly not only when an IOException is caught, but also when any other Throwable is caught. Let me know if you have any concerns. Regards

Intent to backport OAK-8769

Hi I intend to backport task "OAK-8769 : oak-auth-ldap pom needs maintenance" to the 1.22 branch. The fix (among other things) updates the following dependencies to more recent versions: org.apache.directory.api:all-api, org.apache.mina:mina-core Let me know if you have any concerns. Kind reg

Intent to backport OAK-9230 and OAK-9231

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-9230 and OAK-9231 to maintenance branches 1.22 and 1.8. This is an improvement disabled by default in oak-store-document and used by oak-run index selectively for reading nodes. Depending on the data in the DocumentStore, the speed up of the read operation can be rathe

Intent to backport OAK-9229

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-9229 to maintenance branches 1.22 and 1.8. The changes are test only. See details in the issue description. I consider this low risk because no production code is touched. Let me know if you have any concerns. Regards Marcel

Intent to backport OAK-7553

Hi, I'd like to backport changes for OAK-7553 to the 1.8 branch. The CommitValueResolver was introduced with 1.8 but slightly refactored with OAK-7553. This currently makes it more difficult to maintain the 1.8 branch. I consider the backport low risk because there is no functional change, just

Intent to backport OAK-9205, OAK-9210 and OAK-9218 to 1.22 branch

Hi, I intend to backport the fix for OAK-9205 [0], OAK-9210 [1] and OAK-9218 [2] to 1.22 branch. These changes address security vulnerabilites found in previous versions of netty and htmlunit libraries. Let me know if you have any concerns. Regards, Andrei [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/brow

Intent to backport OAK-8969

Hi, I intend to backport the fix for OAK-8969 to the 1.22 branch. It addresses a somewhat obscure bug where a user that requests to ignore the domain override can get the wrong download URI if download URI caching is enabled. The fix is easy and low-risk. Please let me know if there are concern

Intent to backport OAK-8936

Hi, I intend to backport the fix for OAK-8936 to the 1.22 branch. The fix is a one-line change in the code with some new test code to cover the bug and the bugfix. I consider this a low-risk change. A patch describing the change is attached to OAK-8936 and is visible at [0]. [0] - https://issu

Intent to backport OAK-8870

Hi I'd like to backport OAK-8870 [1] to the maintenance branches. The fix is simple and I consider the risk associated with the backport as low. Let me know if you have any concerns. Kind regards Angela [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8870

Re: Intent to backport to 1.10: OAK-8018

On 05.12.2019 16:03, Angela Schreiber wrote: Hi Julian But why do we have to align Oak 1.10 with trunk now that we have stable release on regular basis instead of releasing only once a year? (see other thread) IMO it would be better and a lot less risky to push for updating to a more recent

Re: Intent to backport to 1.10: OAK-8018

porting the huge number of API changes we made over the last couple of years. Kind regards Angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 2:38 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org ; Angela Schreiber Subject: Re: Intent to backport to 1.10: OAK

Re: Intent to backport to 1.10: OAK-8018

On 05.12.2019 13:51, Angela Schreiber wrote: Hi Julian This changes with OAK-8018 modified public API as far as I can see and I vaguely remember that we concluded in the past that we want to avoid back porting anything that is not a critical bug and be particularly careful not to back port AP

Re: Intent to backport to 1.10: OAK-8018

19 1:34 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Intent to backport to 1.10: OAK-8018 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8018>: "Move LazyValue from oak-core to oak-commons" See also previous message "Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10" (&

Intent to backport to 1.10: OAK-8018

: "Move LazyValue from oak-core to oak-commons" See also previous message "Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10" (

Intent to backport

Hi, I intend to backport https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7473to 1.8 . Please let me know if there are any concerns . Thanks, Nitin

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8591

On 10.09.2019 11:59, Marcel Reutegger wrote: Hi, I'd like to backport the fix for OAK-8591 to maintenance branches. The risk is low to medium because the problem is well understood, but affects code at the core of the DocumentNodeStore. Regards Marcel +1

Intent to backport OAK-8591

Hi, I'd like to backport the fix for OAK-8591 to maintenance branches. The risk is low to medium because the problem is well understood, but affects code at the core of the DocumentNodeStore. Regards Marcel

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8449

+1 --Vikas (sent from mobile) On Thu, 5 Sep, 2019, 15:21 Marcel Reutegger, wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to backport OAK-8449 to some maintenance branches to make > this functionality available to users of older Oak versions. I consider the > risk as low because the added functionality is in the Do

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8449

On 05.09.2019 11:51, Marcel Reutegger wrote: Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-8449 to some maintenance branches to make this functionality available to users of older Oak versions. I consider the risk as low because the added functionality is in the DocumentNodeStore MBean and must be triggered manu

Intent to backport OAK-8449

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-8449 to some maintenance branches to make this functionality available to users of older Oak versions. I consider the risk as low because the added functionality is in the DocumentNodeStore MBean and must be triggered manually by a user. Regards Marcel

Intent to backport OAK-8298 to 1.10

Hi, I propose to backport the fix to OAK-8298 to 1.10. This is a bug fix for direct binary access to ensure that binaries added via direct upload are also tracked via the blob id tracker. The fix is low risk in my view. -MR

Intent to backport OAK-8066 to 1.8 and 1.10

I intend to backport OAK-8066 to 1.8 and 1.10. The change prevents excessive memory consumption, which can lead to OOME, when rebasing a node with many children. The backport is tracked by OAK-8559. I couldn't reopen the original issue, so I created a new one to clearly signal that I want this cha

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8351

On 25.06.2019 14:26, Stefan Egli wrote: Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-8351 [0] to the 1.8 and 1.10 branches unless someone objects. OAK-8351 changes a MongoDB query that was introduced in this form in 1.8 ... +1

Intent to backport OAK-8351

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-8351 [0] to the 1.8 and 1.10 branches unless someone objects. OAK-8351 changes a MongoDB query that was introduced in this form in 1.8 Cheers, Stefan -- [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8351

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8235

On 14.06.2019 16:08, Tommaso Teofili wrote: thanks for the feedback Davide and Julian, in summary I share your same concerns and therefore I don't have a good solution myself. For now I've only backported it to the "safe" branches. I'm thinking of backporting the previous upgrade to Solr 5.5.5 to

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8235

thanks for the feedback Davide and Julian, in summary I share your same concerns and therefore I don't have a good solution myself. For now I've only backported it to the "safe" branches. I'm thinking of backporting the previous upgrade to Solr 5.5.5 to branch 1.6, which would be JDK 1.7 compatible

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8235

On 11.06.2019 12:42, Davide Giannella wrote: ... -1 on the additional branch. It will be yet one more branch to maintain that will go very easily out of sync from the "official" 1.6. The only way to solve this is to increase the JDK compatibility. However we have to account for consumer projects

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8235

On 07/06/2019 15:35, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > I would create a branch of branch 1.6 for OAK-8235 > (e.g. 1.6-oak-8235) where > I would backport such changes and set the JDK compatibility version to 1.8. > The question then comes for releases, I don't

Intent to backport OAK-8235

Hi all, I'd like to backport OAK-8235 to branch 1.10, 1.8 and 1.6. For branch 1.10 and 1.8 everything should be just fine, however for 1.6 we had set our java compatibility to JDK 1.7, however Solr 6.6.6 requires at least JDK 1.8. In most cases I s

Intent to backport OAK-8118 and OAK-8819 to the 1.8 branch

Hi all, If no one objects, I'd like to backport OAK-8118 [1] and OAK-8819 [2] to the 1.8 branch. Regards, Tommaso [1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8118 [2] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8119

Intent to backport (to 1.8 and 1.10): OAK-8089

"DocumentNodeStore dispose can fail when duration of final background ops exceeds lease time" ...leads to unclean shutdown and the requirement of a MissingLastRev scan upon restart. Best regards, Julian

Intent to backport OAK-8124

Hello, I’d like to backport the OAK-8124 to 1.10 and 1.8. This patch adds the security-related commit hooks, which were missing for the partial oak->oak migration in oak-upgrade. Regards, Tomek -- Tomek Rękawek | ASF committer | www.apache.org tom...@apache.org

Intent to backport OAK-8115, OAK-8112

Hi, I would like to backport changes for OAK-8115 & OAK-8112 to 1.10 branch and these are low risk. Thanks Amit

Intent to backport OAK-8106

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-8106, which can result in high memory usage and affect the availability of the system. The fix is medium risk, but the fix in trunk addresses this with additional tests in this area. Regards Marcel

Intent to backport OAK-8122

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-8122 to the 1.10 branch. The issue is minor and low risk. Regards Marcel

Intent to backport OAK-8071

Hi, I intent to backport the changes we did for OAK-8071: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1854515&view=rev This adds some warning logging for specific cases where a commit is blocked for a long time (configurable via -Doak.segmentNodeStore.commitWaitWarnMillis) on a commit tha

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8013

On 28.02.2019 00:41, Matt Ryan wrote: ... +1

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8013

For reference: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8013 On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:41 PM Matt Ryan wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to backport OAK-8013 to Oak 1.10. This change introduces a > workaround for an issue with the direct binary access code that is caused > by a bug in the Azure

Intent to backport OAK-8013

Hi, I would like to backport OAK-8013 to Oak 1.10. This change introduces a workaround for an issue with the direct binary access code that is caused by a bug in the Azure SDK. When a client requests a signed direct download URI, Oak includes a specification in the signed URI to tell the service

Intent to backport OAK-8069

Hi, I would like to backport OAK-8069 to Oak 1.10 and 1.8. This introduced some logging to catch cases where many direct child nodes are added to a node transiently. Risk is relatively low as there are no functional changes, just logging. Michael

intent to backport OAK-8072

Hi all, I'd like to backport OAK-8072 [1] to 1.10 and 1.8 branches, if there's no objection. Regards, Tommaso [1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8072

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8033 to Oak 1.10, 1.8 and 1.6

Merged into 1.6 at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1853814&view=revMerged into 1.8 at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1853813&view=revMerged into 1.10 at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1853812&view=revMichael On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 09:58, Michael Dürig wrote: > > > Hi, > > In intend to backpor

Intent to backport OAK-8033 to Oak 1.10, 1.8 and 1.6

Hi, In intend to backport OAK-8033 [1] to the branches mentioned in the subject. This fixes a regression introduced with OAK-7867 [2] that could cause data loss after running full compaction. The risk is relatively low as the fix is quite simple and has shown to resolve concessional test f

Intent to backport OAK-7984

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-7984 to the 1.10 branch. Technically this is just a minor improvement, but it can have a significant performance impact when the DocumentNodeStore has to roll back a commit. Regards Marcel

Intent to backport: OAK-8007

Potential resource leak affecting off-heap memory... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8007 to 1.10 and 1.8 for now...

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7867 to Oak 1.8 and 1.6

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:50 AM Michael Dürig wrote: > > Hi, > > I intend to backport OAK-7867 to Oak 1.8 and 1.6. This fixes an issue > that can cause sever data loss with the segment node store. There is a > medium to high risk with this backport as it touches some of the core > parts of the se

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7867 to Oak 1.8 and 1.6

+1 On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 17:50, Michael Dürig wrote: > Hi, > > I intend to backport OAK-7867 to Oak 1.8 and 1.6. This fixes an issue > that can cause sever data loss with the segment node store. There is a > medium to high risk with this backport as it touches some of the core > parts of the se

Intent to backport OAK-7867 to Oak 1.8 and 1.6

Hi, I intend to backport OAK-7867 to Oak 1.8 and 1.6. This fixes an issue that can cause sever data loss with the segment node store. There is a medium to high risk with this backport as it touches some of the core parts of the segment node store. To mitigate the risk we ran a 14 days longevity te

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7886

+1 On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 8:52 AM Marcel Reutegger wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to backport OAK-7886 to the maintenance branches. Depending on > how node types are registered it may happen that even built-in node types > end up in an invalid state. The risk is medium to low because the fix is > no

Intent to backport OAK-7886

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-7886 to the maintenance branches. Depending on how node types are registered it may happen that even built-in node types end up in an invalid state. The risk is medium to low because the fix is not too complex and has been reviewed but still affects a central piece

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6890

+1 On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:57 AM Michael Dürig wrote: > > > On 05.09.18 11:23, Francesco Mari wrote: > > I intend to backport OAK-6890 to the 1.6 branch. The keeps some > background > > threads alive in the face of unexpected failures. All of these threads > are > > critical for the correctness

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6890

On 05.09.18 11:23, Francesco Mari wrote: I intend to backport OAK-6890 to the 1.6 branch. The keeps some background threads alive in the face of unexpected failures. All of these threads are critical for the correctness of the Segment Store. +1 Michael

Intent to backport OAK-6890

I intend to backport OAK-6890 to the 1.6 branch. The keeps some background threads alive in the face of unexpected failures. All of these threads are critical for the correctness of the Segment Store.

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7721

+1 On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:42 AM Michael Dürig wrote: > > > On 04.09.18 11:14, Francesco Mari wrote: > > I intend to backport OAK-7721 to the 1.8 and 1.6 branches. The fix > prevents > > the segment buffers from being corrupted when too big records are > > persisted. The corruption is only det

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7721

On 04.09.18 11:14, Francesco Mari wrote: I intend to backport OAK-7721 to the 1.8 and 1.6 branches. The fix prevents the segment buffers from being corrupted when too big records are persisted. The corruption is only detected when the buffer is flushed to disk, when it's too late to detect the

Intent to backport OAK-7721

I intend to backport OAK-7721 to the 1.8 and 1.6 branches. The fix prevents the segment buffers from being corrupted when too big records are persisted. The corruption is only detected when the buffer is flushed to disk, when it's too late to detect the code path that led to the corruption. The fix

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7720

+1 On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:14 PM Francesco Mari wrote: > I intend to backport OAK-7720 to the 1.8 and 1.6 branch. The fix makes the > system log a dump of too big segments to ease debugging the corruption of > the segment buffer. >

Intent to backport OAK-7720

I intend to backport OAK-7720 to the 1.8 and 1.6 branch. The fix makes the system log a dump of too big segments to ease debugging the corruption of the segment buffer.

Intent to backport: OAK-7540 to 1.8.x

Hello, The unique indices may sometimes break on the Composite Node Store. Vikas fixed this in OAK-7540. I'd like to backport the fix to the 1.8, after an user request. Regards, Tomek -- Tomek Rękawek | ASF committer | www.apache.org tom...@apache.org

Intent to backport OAK-7428 to 1.8/1.6/1.4

Hi, This fix allows external identifiers for LDAP principals to be created from custom attributes, not just from the LDAP DN. Since the DN may change and rep:externalId is a protected property, this is necessary. Best regards, Manfred

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6648

+1 On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 09:09, Michael Dürig wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to backport OAK-6648 to Oak 1.6. This fixes an issue with > offline revision cleanup causing tar files to not being removed under > some circumstances. > > The risk is low as it only contains minor changes to code tha

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6648

+1 În vin., 17 aug. 2018 la 10:09, Michael Dürig a scris: > > Hi, > > I would like to backport OAK-6648 to Oak 1.6. This fixes an issue with > offline revision cleanup causing tar files to not being removed under > some circumstances. > > The risk is low as it only contains minor changes to code

Intent to backport OAK-6648

Hi, I would like to backport OAK-6648 to Oak 1.6. This fixes an issue with offline revision cleanup causing tar files to not being removed under some circumstances. The risk is low as it only contains minor changes to code that is executed when the repository is shut down. Michael

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7359

On 13/08/2018 10:23, Marcel Reutegger wrote: > I'd like to backport the MongoDB Java driver update to 3.6.x to some of the > more recent maintenance branches. +1 D.

Intent to backport OAK-7359

Hi, I'd like to backport the MongoDB Java driver update to 3.6.x to some of the more recent maintenance branches. E.g. the documentation currently says that Oak 1.6.x is tested and recommended on MongoDB 3.2.x, which goes EOL soon. Updating the driver to a 3.6.x version would give users more ti

Intent to backport: OAK-7686 and OAK-7687

Hello, The issues in subject fix incorrect behaviour of the oak-upgrade, when the partial migration is done (eg. only /content/site is being migrated). In this case, the full reindexing is triggered after starting the target repository. I plan to backport the issues to 1.8 and 1.6 branches, as

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7593

+1 for backporting this. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Marcel Reutegger wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to backport OAK-7593 to the 1.8 and 1.6 branches. The issue is a > regression caused by OAK-5559 and may result in a repository that cannot read > an affected node in an older revision. > > Regar

Intent to backport OAK-7593

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-7593 to the 1.8 and 1.6 branches. The issue is a regression caused by OAK-5559 and may result in a repository that cannot read an affected node in an older revision. Regards Marcel

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6294

+1 --Vikas (sent from mobile) On Thu 31 May, 2018, 18:32 Marcel Reutegger, wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to backport OAK-6294 to the 1.6 and 1.4 branch. The issue has > been reported a while ago and was also fixed in 1.8. I think it's time to > fix this also in the affected maintenance branches. Th

Intent to backport OAK-6294

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-6294 to the 1.6 and 1.4 branch. The issue has been reported a while ago and was also fixed in 1.8. I think it's time to fix this also in the affected maintenance branches. The effect of the issue is rather severe because it can cause a repository inconsistency. Reg

intent to backport OAK-7339

Hello, I’m planning to backport the OAK-7339 to Oak 1.8 and 1.6. It’s a patch fixing a common issue for the oak-upgrade users. Regards, Tomek -- Tomek Rękawek | ASF committer | www.apache.org tom...@apache.org signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Intent to backport OAK-7437 - SimpleExcerptProvider highlighting should be case insensitive

Hi I would like to backport https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7437. Please let me know if you have any concern/objection. Regards, Thomas

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7356

+1 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Angela Schreiber < anch...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi > > I would like to backport https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7356. > > Please let me know if you have any concern/objection. > > Kind regards > Angela > >

Intent to backport OAK-7356

Hi I would like to backport https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7356. Please let me know if you have any concern/objection. Kind regards Angela

Intent to backport OAK-7335

Hi, I’m planning to backport OAK-7335 to 1.6.x. It’ll make the oak-upgrade more permissive when migrating nodes with long names (details in the issue). Regards, Tomek -- Tomek Rękawek | Adobe Research | www.adobe.com reka...@adobe.com

Intent to backport to 1.8: OAK-7314

Context: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7314 (once committed)

Intent to backport to all maintenance branches: OAK-7289

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7289 (potential NPE in well-intended exception handler)

Intent to backport OAK-6392

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-6392 to the maintenance branches. The issue is relevant for tooling such as upgrade and may result in inconsistent repositories. Regards Marcel

Intent to backport: OAK-4859 to 1.0

...logging improvement related to lease update thread that was backported to 1.2, but not 1.0 yet.

intent to backport OAK-4318 to branch 1.6

Hi all, I'd like to backport upgrade to Solr 5.5.5 (OAK-4318) to branch 1.6. Regards, Tommaso

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6373 to 1.8

+1. The fix only affects tooling code. With this change we increase coverage for detecting corruptions we previously missed. Michael On 31.01.18 12:23, Andrei Dulceanu wrote: Hi All, I intend to backport OAK-6373 to 1.8 branch. This issue enhances the behaviour of oak-run check command to t

Intent to backport OAK-7162 to 1.8

Hi All, I intend to backport OAK-7162 to 1.8 branch. This issue fixes a race condition in the TarMK persistence layer that under some specific conditions can cause the data from a single commit to be lost. Andrei

Intent to backport OAK-6373 to 1.8

Hi All, I intend to backport OAK-6373 to 1.8 branch. This issue enhances the behaviour of oak-run check command to traverse all, some or none of the checkpoints. Andrei

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7176

+1 On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Marcel Reutegger wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to backport OAK-7176 to maintenance branches 1.8, 1.6 and 1.4. The > issue is only minor and is unlikely to occur in practice, but it is clearly a > violation of the RevisionVector contract. The fix is easy and low r

Intent to backport OAK-7176

Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-7176 to maintenance branches 1.8, 1.6 and 1.4. The issue is only minor and is unlikely to occur in practice, but it is clearly a violation of the RevisionVector contract. The fix is easy and low risk. Regards Marcel

Re: Intent to backport OAK-{7168,7169,7171} to 1.8

+1 Andrei 2018-01-17 16:56 GMT+02:00 Francesco Mari : > I intend to backport OAK-{7168,7169,7171} to the 1.8 branch. The three > issues fix the behaviour of the debug, datastorecheck, and history > command when it comes to error handling. The fix make these commands > return with a non-zero exit

Intent to backport OAK-{7168,7169,7171} to 1.8

I intend to backport OAK-{7168,7169,7171} to the 1.8 branch. The three issues fix the behaviour of the debug, datastorecheck, and history command when it comes to error handling. The fix make these commands return with a non-zero exit code in case of error and print error message to standard error

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7157 to 1.8

+1 Andrei 2018-01-16 17:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Dürig : > > +1. This is also relevant for OAK-7132 in the broader scope. > > Michael > > > On 16.01.18 16:45, Francesco Mari wrote: > >> I intend to backport OAK-7157 to the 1.8 branch. The fix implements an >> optimisation for cold standby instances.

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7131 (xpath to sql2 conversion drops order by clause for some cases)

+1 --Vikas (sent from mobile) On 17-Jan-2018 18:37, "Thomas Mueller" wrote: > I want to backport OAK-7152 to all maintenance branches. The fix is simple > and low risk. > > Regards, > Thomas > > >

Intent to backport OAK-7131 (xpath to sql2 conversion drops order by clause for some cases)

I want to backport OAK-7152 to all maintenance branches. The fix is simple and low risk. Regards, Thomas

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7152

+1 On 15.01.18, 09:47, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote: Hi, I will backport OAK-7152 to all maintenance branches. The fix is trivial and very low risk because the method currently simply does not return. Regards Marcel

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7157 to 1.8

+1. This is also relevant for OAK-7132 in the broader scope. Michael On 16.01.18 16:45, Francesco Mari wrote: I intend to backport OAK-7157 to the 1.8 branch. The fix implements an optimisation for cold standby instances. With the fix in place, standby instances only retained the latest genera

Intent to backport OAK-7157 to 1.8

I intend to backport OAK-7157 to the 1.8 branch. The fix implements an optimisation for cold standby instances. With the fix in place, standby instances only retained the latest generation, instead of the last two generations. This allows a cold standby instance to remove old segments more aggressi

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7158 to 1.8

+1. This is in the broader sense part of OAK-7132. Michael On 16.01.18 13:53, Francesco Mari wrote: I intend to backport OAK-7158 to the 1.8 branch. The fix is about disallowing users from changing the number of generations retained by the FileStore. Setting the number of retained generations

Intent to backport OAK-7158 to 1.8

I intend to backport OAK-7158 to the 1.8 branch. The fix is about disallowing users from changing the number of generations retained by the FileStore. Setting the number of retained generations to a value different than its default might cause data loss due to the way cleanup works.

Re: Intent to backport OAK-7136 to 1.8

+1 On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Robert Munteanu wrote: > Hi, > > I intent to backport OAK-7136 to the 1.8 stable branch. The fixes are > basically moving the metatype.properties files in the right directory, > so I expect zero issues. > > Thanks, > > Robert >

Intent to backport OAK-7136 to 1.8

Hi, I intent to backport OAK-7136 to the 1.8 stable branch. The fixes are basically moving the metatype.properties files in the right directory, so I expect zero issues. Thanks, Robert

Intent to backport OAK-7152

Hi, I will backport OAK-7152 to all maintenance branches. The fix is trivial and very low risk because the method currently simply does not return. Regards Marcel

Re: Intent to backport to 1.8: OAK-7147

+1 --Vikas (sent from mobile) On 12-Jan-2018 11:03, "Chetan Mehrotra" wrote: > Need to backport OAK-7147 - Oak run LuceneIndexer indexes excluded parent > nodes > > regards > Chetan Mehrotra >

Intent to backport to 1.8: OAK-7147

Need to backport OAK-7147 - Oak run LuceneIndexer indexes excluded parent nodes regards Chetan Mehrotra

  1   2   3   >