On 12 Feb 2010, at 09:02, Ian Boston wrote:

> 
> On 11 Feb 2010, at 20:49, Justin Edelson wrote:
> 
>> On 2/11/10 3:12 PM, Ian Boston wrote:
>>>> I think we should just update to jcr 2.
>>> 
>>> Ok, I have two questions.
>>> How much work is this inside Sling (I am assuming the branch for 2 is there 
>>> already) and ?
>> 
>> Felix created a branch in SVN a while back. I have a Jackrabbit 2 branch
>> at github (http://github.com/justinedelson/sling/tree/jr2) which is
>> pretty up-to-date. Latest code review in
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/207067
>> 
>>> What will it impact in terms of bundles, just the server bundle or are 
>>> there changes all over the code base ?
>> 
>> Looks like:
>> jcr.base
>> jcr.contentloader
>> jcr.jackrabbit-accessmanager
>> jcr.jackrabbit-server
>> jcr.webdav
> 
> Assuming that the concepts in ACL dont change, then being totally selfish for 
> a moment, 
> I will have to port local modifications to jackrabbit-server and 
> contentloader. 
> This isnt a big problem, and certainly should not stop this happening, but it 
> does raise another issue.
> 
> AFAICT, there are a number of bundles that haven't been released, and perhaps 
> before moving to JR2 we should consider doing releases of the above set so 
> those who cant upgrade for whatever reason has a release they can bind do.
> 
> Last releases
> jcr.base 2.0.4 14 May 2009
> 2.1.0 has one open issue (SLING-1366), in reality this should be 2.0.5 is 
> 1366 is reverted.
> depends on 
>      jcr.api 2.0.7-SNAPSHOT, would need SLING-1363 reverting to release as 
> 2.0.8
> 
> 
> jcr.contentloader 2.0.4 14 May 2009
> 2.0.6 has no open issues
> 2.0.8 no issues (at all)
>   no SNAPSHOT dependencies
> 
> jcr.accessmanager 2.0.2 14 May 2009 
> next release 2.0.4
> no open issues 
>    no SNAPSHOT dependencies
> 
> jcr.server 14 May 2009  
> next release 2.0.6 
> 2 open issues (look like they can be closed)
>    depends on jcr.base 2.0.5-SNAPSHOT (which would be released)
>    no other SNAPSHOT dependencies
> 
> jcr.webdav 2.0.6 14 May 2009   
> next release 2.0.8 
> no open issues
>   no SNAPSHOT dependencies
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> If we reverted jcr.base back to the 2.0.6 target (temporarily reverting 
> SLING-1363 and related), adjusted server, then we could release all of the 
> above, giving the community a release to bind to before this change. I don't 
> think its a massive amount of work and I would be willing to do it, or if 
> someone else has a process setup they might be quicker.
> 
> WDYT?



I have done a patch[1] that reverts the changes and makes a release of all of 
the above possible. It builds, release:prepare works (but needs base to be 
released first so that server can bind to 2.0.6) and I have tested it in our 
custom environment with all our Ruby based integration tests. I might have 
missed something but there were no errors.

I would propose that we apply the patch (might be best if I do this from 
git->svn so deletes/moves/renames behave), 
release the items (Carsten?, just because your keys are better signed than mine)
and if it looks like the vote is going to pass (ie 3 committers have done 
validation) 
then revert the patch (I can do this git->svn) to allow JR2 move to happen.

?

Before any of that, someone else might like to check that the patch is good and 
I haven't missed anything. I reverted the following commits 
908956 SLING-1366 : Use dynamic proxy to handle session#impersonate call.
908888 SLING-1363 - We added a new interface so we should increase the minor 
versio ....
908799 correcting jcr.api package version
908798 SLING-1363 - removing SessionConfigurer interface and moving 
NamespaceMapper from base to api. Cr...
908780 fixing SLING-1367
908531 SLING-1366 : Readd call to NamespaceMapper
908440 SLING-1363 Must start the session configurer tracker before starting the 
repository because starting ....
908232 SLING-1363 - adding SessionConfigurer interface

in that sequence.

Ian

1. http://codereview.appspot.com/206082




> 
> The problem with using x.x.x-SNAPSHOTS is that we are giving the community an 
> indication of intent to release x.x.x before going to x.x.x+1
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I think the contentloader change is optional.
>> 
>> Justin
>> 
>>> 
>>> Ian
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Carsten
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>>> [email protected]
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to