Hi all, Now, that the Jackrabbit 1.4 is just about going out of the house, I want to restart a discussion, which has been lead a number of times but IIRC always has been settled with something like "we know we should, but we will not now" .... There is probable not a better time than just after a release, to reconsider. So, let's go.
Each Jackrabbit Release is a real big shot. For example, release 1.4 contains 22 artifacts. Some of them are new (e.g. ocm, spi) some of them have not changed at all (classloader, maybe more). This makes me worry a bit: * Coordinating the release of 22 artifacts is very difficult and close to impossible We have seen that in the delay of the release but also in the recent veto vote due to an unfixed issue. It will not be getting easier in the future as more artifacts are being used to a similar extend as jackrabbit-core. * Increasing the version number of an artifact which did not change is problematic As a user (with my Apache Sling hat on) I am kind of worried of the new Jackrabbit API version: There have been constant version increses ever since the artifact was created. As the Jackrabbit API is the official access to some Jackrabbit functionality which is also available remotely, I pay very much attention to the API and its changes. If there are changes, I might consider upgrading the API library in Sling. If there are none, I will of course not upgrade. But how can I tell ? Usually, I check the version number. This increases, so my first check fails. So I have to go ask SVN - not something really useful, right ? [ Maybe the API is wrong in the 1.4 release, but replace API with class loader and think again ] To come to an end, I suggest: * We stop making big releases as we do now * We release as appropriate and as required This results in more releases but in a much faster release turnaround. So for example to make an urgent release with the OCM component (just an example), we would not have to wait for any other component being ready for release. We just fix and release. And even better: I am sure, we might even be able to prevent creating branches :-) WDYT ? Regards Felix
