Re: Oak (1.8) and Jackrabbit (2.16) stable releases plan

2017-12-06 Thread Marcel Reutegger
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

Experimental build for Oak on Windows

2017-12-06 Thread Robert Munteanu
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

Re: Oak (1.8) and Jackrabbit (2.16) stable releases plan

2017-12-06 Thread Julian Reschke
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?

Re: Oak (1.8) and Jackrabbit (2.16) stable releases plan

2017-12-06 Thread Davide Giannella
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.

Re: Oak (1.8) and Jackrabbit (2.16) stable releases plan

2017-12-06 Thread Davide Giannella
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

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

2017-12-06 Thread Davide Giannella
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

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

2017-12-06 Thread Andrei Dulceanu
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

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

2017-12-06 Thread Marcel Reutegger
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

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

2017-12-06 Thread Thomas Mueller
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

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

2017-12-06 Thread Julian Reschke
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

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

2017-12-06 Thread Torgeir Veimo
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)

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

2017-12-06 Thread Thomas Mueller
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.