Sorted out my lucene version issues, so not getting that exception any
more, but still not getting any query results. Still seeing multiple
of these in the logs;
23:55:14,288 TRACE lucene.IndexDefinition.collectIndexRules() - line
519 [0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1] - Found rule 'IndexRule: ka:asset' for
Hi
I had an offline discussion with Francesco regarding the implementation of the
revision for the continuable session in the OAK API and read through the
comments in [1].
Some additional comments to what Alex mentioned yesterday:
I like the idea of separating the internal revision from the
On 25/02/2015 01:39, Marcel Reutegger wrote:
Hi,
I don't see a reason why we should keep them.
+1 for cleaning up.
+1
D.
Build Update for apache/jackrabbit-oak
-
Build: #5188
Status: Fixed
Duration: 5558 seconds
Commit: 0bdc3ddca103f4d5d23ef341c03e144f190da7ca (trunk)
Author: Thomas Mueller
Message: OAK-301 : oak documentation
git-svn-id:
+1 clean up
On 25/02/15 10:03, Alex Parvulescu alex.parvule...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I noticed we have some old unused branches on our svn repo [0], some are
candidates for cleanup: 0.6, 0.7, jackrabbit-oak-core-0.15, pre-0.4.
what do others think, can we clean this up?
thanks,
alex
[0]
Hi,
I don't see a reason why we should keep them.
+1 for cleaning up.
Regards
Marcel
On 25/02/15 10:03, Alex Parvulescu alex.parvule...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I noticed we have some old unused branches on our svn repo [0], some are
candidates for cleanup: 0.6, 0.7, jackrabbit-oak-core-0.15,
Hi,
I noticed we have some old unused branches on our svn repo [0], some are
candidates for cleanup: 0.6, 0.7, jackrabbit-oak-core-0.15, pre-0.4.
what do others think, can we clean this up?
thanks,
alex
[0] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jackrabbit/oak/branches/
