On 2018-12-10 17:59, Davide Giannella wrote:
...
[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.9.13
...where...
[INFO] Apache Maven 3.5.2 (138edd61fd100ec658bfa2d307c43b76940a5d7d;
2017-10-18T09:58:13+02:00)
[INFO] OS name: "windows 10", version: "10.0", arch: "amd64", family:
A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.9.13 release is available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jackrabbit/oak/1.9.13/
The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/tags/jackrabbit-oak-1.9.13/
The SHA1 checksum of
Dear adaptTo() Community,
2018 will soon be over and we would like to take this opportunity to share with
you some details about the next adaptTo() conference:
Event Date: 2nd - 4th September 2019
Location: KOSMOS, Berlin
Tickets available from: 1st February 2019
Call for papers: February to
version, timestamp and commit hash works
well. The qualifier is compared lexicographically, so the timestamp would
do the trick regardless of the commit hash. See this example [1] on
Versionatorr.
[1]:
http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.0-20181210-79377d5aab231f27fa7e3dc7bdd0e828=1.0-20181209-8135fa0dc4bdb394f38afc1f084336a2
hello,
+1 for the move (after Christmas). See in-line
On 10/12/2018 12:39, Francesco Mari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 11:45, Robert Munteanu wrote:
>
>> - one repository for Oak or one repository per module (oak-commons,
>> oak-api, etc )?
>>
> I don't think we should change the
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 12:08, Julian Reschke wrote:
> They already provide patches through Github, right?
Those patches have the be brought back into SVN. This requires some manual
work. It's not a lot, but it's not as seamless as it could be.
> I don't see anything broken with the
Thanks Julian,
I rely on https://reporter.apache.org/ for the releases. Not sure why
those didn't show up there. Good to have humans checking this ;-)
Michael
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 12:47, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> On 2018-12-10 10:53, Michael Dürig wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've assembled a
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 11:45, Robert Munteanu wrote:
> - one repository for Oak or one repository per module (oak-commons,
> oak-api, etc )?
>
I don't think we should change the structure of the repository during the
migration. I would maintain one single repository for Oak.
> - how does
On 2018-12-10 10:53, Michael Dürig wrote:
Hi,
I've assembled a preliminary board report for December:
https://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Board%20Report%20December%202018
Please have a look at let me know of any omissions or corrections. I
plan to submit it Wednesday morning CET.
Michael
On 2018-12-10 11:49, Michael Dürig wrote:
+1 I think moving to Git would eventually simplify a few things.
"eventually".
Especially ramping up new committers and sporadic contributors will
likely find it easier through Git.
They already provide patches through Github, right?
Robert
+1 I think moving to Git would eventually simplify a few things.
Especially ramping up new committers and sporadic contributors will
likely find it easier through Git.
Robert already brought up some issues we need keep in mind when
migrating and I'm sure there are more. Let's see whether we can
Hi Francesco,
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 10:58 +0100, Francesco Mari wrote:
> Given the recent announcement about gitbox.apache.org, the seamless
> integration with GitHub, and the fact that many of us already work
> with Git
> in our daily workflow, what about moving our repositories to Git?
Well,
Given the recent announcement about gitbox.apache.org, the seamless
integration with GitHub, and the fact that many of us already work with Git
in our daily workflow, what about moving our repositories to Git?
Hi,
I've assembled a preliminary board report for December:
https://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Board%20Report%20December%202018
Please have a look at let me know of any omissions or corrections. I
plan to submit it Wednesday morning CET.
Michael
+1
Davide
15 matches
Mail list logo
