same here, hence -1 (or $my.vote -=2) Regards, Tommaso
Il giorno ven 4 mar 2016 alle ore 05:29 Amit Jain <[email protected]> ha scritto: > Based on Marcel's recommendation, changing my vote to -1. > > Thanks > Amit > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Marcel Reutegger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > meanwhile I created an issue for the problem seen > > with the release candidate: OAK-4085 > > > > I still think we should cancel the release because > > the node type registry is malformed after an upgrade > > with reregistered node types. > > > > with the votes we currently have, the release would > > still go out. anyone with a +1 willing to change his > > mind? > > > > Regards > > Marcel > > > > On 03/03/16 11:25, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > >I have to change my vote based on further testing to > > > > > >-1 > > > > > >As noted earlier I was looking into an upgrade issue > > >reported by Zygmunt Wiercioch (OAK-4077). This fix > > >is included in the 1.4.0 release candidate. However > > >there appears to be a more severe problem with node > > >type definitions in the repository. > > > > > >A while back OAK-3584 fixed the indexes for names of > > >item definitions. This change works well for new > > >repositories or newly registered node types, but it > > >makes the situation worse when an existing node type > > >is reregistered. The result after an upgrade may look > > >like this: > > > > > >my:type > > > + jcr:childNodeDefinition > > > + jcr:childNodeDefinition[1] > > > + jcr:childNodeDefinition[2] > > > + jcr:propertyDefinition > > > + jcr:propertyDefinition[1] > > > > > >The duplicate child nodes with explicit and implicit > > >index 1 is not the only issue. It may also happen that > > >there are duplicate item definitions after a node type > > >is reregistered. The NodeTypeDiff is also affected and > > >may report an item definition is removed even though > > >it is still there. > > > > > >In my view these are rather severe issues for users > > >upgrading from earlier Oak versions and we should not > > >release 1.4.0 with these kind of problems. > > > > > >Regards > > > Marcel > > > > > > > > > > > >On 03/03/16 09:47, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote: > > >>Hi, > > >> > > >>On 02/03/16 17:34, "Davide Giannella" wrote: > > >>>Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0. > > >>>The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at > > >>>least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast. > > >> > > >>All checks OK. > > >> > > >>+1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 > > >> > > >>Regards > > >> Marcel > > >> > > > > > > > >
