On 06/12/17 12:14, Davide Giannella wrote:
#8th Dec: Branch and Release Oak 1.8.0
that should probably read 8th of January, unless you'll find a way
traveling back in time ;)
Regards
Marcel
Hi,
I set up yesterday an experimental build for Oak on Windows
https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit-Oak-Windows/
It _seems_ to be working fine, but I've marked it as experimental given
the historical stability issues with ASF Windows bots. Feel free to
double-check with it in case you
On 2017-12-06 12:17, Davide Giannella wrote:
On 06/12/2017 11:14, Davide Giannella wrote:
#21st Dec: Release Oak 1.7.13
Apologies for the noise. My bad.
18th December.
D.
Cut Dec 18, release Dec 21, I assume?
On 06/12/2017 11:14, Davide Giannella wrote:
> #21st Dec: Release Oak 1.7.13
Apologies for the noise. My bad.
18th December.
D.
On 18/10/2017 11:12, Davide Giannella wrote:
> # 21st December
>
> Release Oak 1.7.14. This will technically be our latest unstable cut as
> there's the winter break in the middle and we won't have full coverage
> from all of us
>
> # 15th January
>
> Branch and Release Oak 1.8.0 (or 2.0.0 see
On 06/12/2017 09:39, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version 2.0.
> The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't think
> this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
+1
On 06/12/2017 09:41, Torgeir
On 2017-12-06 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version
> 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't
> think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
>
+1
2017-12-06 12:56 GMT+02:00
On 06/12/17 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote:
I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify
version 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing
process, I don't think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big
impact on users.
+1
Regards
Marcel
Hi,
> Upgrading lucene to version 6 would probably warrant using 2.0, but that's
> not ready yet for 1.8?
No, it's not yet ready for 1.8.
Regards,
Thomas
On 2017-12-06 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote:
I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version 2.0. The
modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't think this is
"fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
+1
Upgrading lucene to version 6 would probably warrant using 2.0, but that's
not ready yet for 1.8?
On 6 December 2017 at 10:39, Thomas Mueller
wrote:
> I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version
> 2.0. The modularization (moving code around)
I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version 2.0. The
modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't think this
is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
12 matches
Mail list logo