On Mar 28, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
The Apache Jackrabbit 1.0 release candidate 3 can be found at:
http://people.apache.org/~jukka/jackrabbit/1.0-rc3/
See the RELEASE-NOTES.txt for more details about the release contents.
Hmm. This is getting a little hairy.
We should be prefixing all of the files with jackrabbit-.
I know that the jcr-* packages are usable with any JCR
implementation, but the jackrabbit- prefix applies to everything
produced in this project (not just the repository). Its a
brand thing (and name collision avoidance as well).
Also, the package naming remains incoherent to me. I can't imagine
what it would look like to a new user, especially since there is
no documentation for the former contrib projects.
Here is what I suggest for making the names coherent:
* Jackrabbit content repository and general-purpose JCR utilities
jackrabbit-core-1.0.3-src.jar
jackrabbit-core-1.0.3.jar
jackrabbit-jcr-commons-1.0.3.jar
* RMI network layer for the JCR API.
jackrabbit-jcr-rmi-1.0.3-src.jar
jackrabbit-jcr-rmi-1.0-rc3.jar
* WebDAV network layer for the JCR API.
jackrabbit-jcr-webdav-1.0.3-src.jar
jackrabbit-jcr-webdav-main-1.0.3.jar
jackrabbit-jcr-webdav-client-1.0.3.jar
jackrabbit-jcr-webdav-server-1.0.3.jar
jackrabbit-jcr-webdav-server-1.0.3.war
* J2EE Connector Architecture (JCA) resource adapter for Jackrabbit.
jackrabbit-jca-1.0.3-src.jar
jackrabbit-jca-1.0.3.rar
* Text indexing filters for Jackrabbit. Includes example filters
for Adobe PDF and MS Excel, PowerPoint, and Word.
jackrabbit-index-filters-1.0.3-src.jar
jackrabbit-index-filters-1.0.3.jar
Should we be marking the non-core projects as alpha releases?
It seems very strange to me to be releasing software without
any documentation.
There are no more pending 1.0 issues, so I'm hoping to start the 1.0
release vote based on this release candidate as soon as the JSR-170
conformance test results are in and given that no unexpected problems
have been reported.
Right, here is another versioning issue then. We only vote to
release complete and signed jar/tarballs. We can't actually have a
vote on something called 1.0-rc3 because it wouldn't be a candidate
if it gets approved, and we can't change the contents after it has
been approved because then we would have to do all the testing again.
That is why we have three version numbers. Let's just stop using
rcX and call the next set of jars 1.0.4. The first release doesn't
have to end in 0 -- version numbers are free (and all versioned jars
are release candidates).
OT: why does jcr-rmi have a dependency on commons-logging?
....Roy
