Hi, On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm thinking of trying to implement one or two of these alternatives > within the next few weeks, and cut Jackrabbit 2.8 based on that work > and including something like Oak 0.16 as a beta feature. Assuming that > approach works and Oak stabilizes as planned, we could then follow up > with Jackrabbit 3.0 fairly soon after 2.8.
None of the alternatives looked too good, so I think the best approach for now is to go with the fallback option g) of keeping the Oak and Jackrabbit Classic deployment packages separate for now. Based on that I already laid out a plan for an Oak 1.0 release [1] and in parallel we should proceed to cut a stable Jackrabbit 2.8 release (release plan to follow). Once those releases are out, we can revisit the plan for a unified Jackrabbit 3.0 release. [1] http://markmail.org/message/6kkkdmyf6ni5pgte BR, Jukka Zitting
