[Oak origin/trunk] Apache Jackrabbit Oak matrix - Build # 1419 - Still Failing

2017-02-10 Thread Apache Jenkins Server
The Apache Jenkins build system has built Apache Jackrabbit Oak matrix (build #1419) Status: Still Failing Check console output at https://builds.apache.org/job/Apache%20Jackrabbit%20Oak%20matrix/1419/ to view the results. Changes: [thomasm] OAK-5621 Warn traversal queries: false positives

[Oak origin/1.6] Apache Jackrabbit Oak matrix - Build # 1418 - Failure

2017-02-10 Thread Apache Jenkins Server
The Apache Jenkins build system has built Apache Jackrabbit Oak matrix (build #1418) Status: Failure Check console output at https://builds.apache.org/job/Apache%20Jackrabbit%20Oak%20matrix/1418/ to view the results. Changes: [thomasm] OAK-5621 Warn traversal queries: false positives for

Re: oak-run, diet and new module

2017-02-10 Thread Arek Kita
Hi, On 10/02/17 10:09, "Francesco Mari" wrote: > As much as I like the proposal of slimming down oak-run, I think that > dividing oak-run in oak-operations and oak-development is the wrong > way to go. This kind of division is horizontal, since commands > pertaining to

Re: ChangeProcessor potentially warns only once for queue being full during its lifetime (without CommitRateLimiter)

2017-02-10 Thread Vikas Saurabh
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Stefan Egli wrote: > +1, looks like a bug to me. > Ok. Logged OAK-5626. I've some doubt if it's a good idea to simply always reset. Would discuss it on the issue Thanks, Vikas

Re: ChangeProcessor potentially warns only once for queue being full during its lifetime (without CommitRateLimiter)

2017-02-10 Thread Stefan Egli
+1, looks like a bug to me. Cheers, Stefan On 09/02/17 23:17, "Vikas Saurabh" wrote: >Hi, > >_Disclaimer_ : I get confused with change processor code, so not sure >if this is an issue or PEBKAC > >ChangeProcessor#queueSizeChanged sets blocking flag to true if queue

Re: oak-run, diet and new module

2017-02-10 Thread Francesco Mari
As much as I like the proposal of slimming down oak-run, I think that dividing oak-run in oak-operations and oak-development is the wrong way to go. This kind of division is horizontal, since commands pertaining to different persistence backends are grouped together according to their roles. This

Re: oak-run, diet and new module

2017-02-10 Thread Angela Schreiber
hi davide could you elaborate a bit on your proposal? from the names (oak-operations and oak-development) it's not clear to me what code would go into which module... also i am not sure about deleting oak-run. for the sake of limiting impact (also when it comes to the backport you mention later