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 have doubts regarding the status of
the build on Windows.

I'll keep it alive for a couple of weeks to assess its stability, and
then we can discuss whether we want to promote it to a 'proper' job
that we actually pay attention to and that sends notifications.

Thanks,

Robert

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 other thread).
>
> After each stable release the effort should therefore move on the
> stabilisation of the stable release branches of which we'll go for
> releases on demand basis depending on what/if fixed. No more unstable
> cut for now.

Slight change of plans as we skipped a load.

#21st Dec: Release Oak 1.7.13

#8th Dec: Branch and Release Oak 1.8.0

Any concerns please speak up.

Cheers
Davide

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 Veimo wrote:
> Upgrading lucene to version 6 would probably warrant using 2.0, but that's
> not ready yet for 1.8?

Yes that would IMO justify a major version change as it will probably
impact considerably an upgrade/update process.

D.

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 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 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) is an ongoing process, I don't
> think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
>
>


-- 
-Tor

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.