The Apache Jenkins build system has built Jackrabbit Oak (build #1244)
Status: Still Failing
Check console output at https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1244/ to
view the results.
Changes:
[reschke] fix svn:eol-style
Test results:
All tests passed
On 2018-02-13 16:13, Manfred Baedke wrote:
...
[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.20
...where...
[INFO] Apache Maven 3.5.2 (138edd61fd100ec658bfa2d307c43b76940a5d7d;
2017-10-18T09:58:13+02:00)
[INFO] OS name: "windows 10", version: "10.0", arch: "amd64", family:
[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.20
where
[INFO] Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
2015-11-10T17:41:47+01:00)
[INFO] OS name: "windows 8.1", version: "6.3", arch: "amd64", family:
"windows"
[INFO] Java version: 1.7.0_79, vendor: Oracle
A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.20 release is available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jackrabbit/oak/1.4.20/
The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/tags/jackrabbit-oak-1.4.20/
The SHA1 checksum of the
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:29 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 February 2018 14:37:29 Alex Deparvu wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
> > I would not move it to oak-core, it would be (I think) a step in
> > the wrong
> > direction wrt. the modularization effort.
>
> seriously, which direction is
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 14:37 +0100, Alex Deparvu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would not move it to oak-core, it would be (I think) a step in the
> wrong
> direction wrt. the modularization effort.
>
> Re. OAK-7203, I think we should make that specific dependency
> optional, but
> I'm not convinced you
On Tuesday 13 February 2018 14:37:29 Alex Deparvu wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> I would not move it to oak-core, it would be (I think) a step in the wrong
> direction wrt. the modularization effort.
seriously, which direction is it? oak-core now depends on oak-store-composite
(which provides optional
The Apache Jenkins build system has built Jackrabbit Oak (build #1243)
Status: Still Failing
Check console output at https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1243/ to
view the results.
Changes:
[rombert] Improve the composite node store documentation a bit
Test results:
All tests
Hi,
I would not move it to oak-core, it would be (I think) a step in the wrong
direction wrt. the modularization effort.
Re. OAK-7203, I think we should make that specific dependency optional, but
I'm not convinced you won't have another bundle pulling in the composite
dependency anyway.
best,
The Apache Jenkins build system has built Jackrabbit Oak (build #1242)
Status: Still Failing
Check console output at https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1242/ to
view the results.
Changes:
[tomekr] OAK-6921: Support pluggable segment storage
Test results:
All tests passed
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 13:04 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 February 2018 13:10:23 Robert Munteanu wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 11:51 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> > > > 1. Move the service to oak-core.
> > > > 2. Require oak-store-composite for deployments
> > > >
> > > > If we go
On Tuesday 13 February 2018 13:10:23 Robert Munteanu wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 11:51 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> > > 1. Move the service to oak-core.
> > > 2. Require oak-store-composite for deployments
> > >
> > > If we go with 1, we have simpler deployments ( one less bundle ).
> > > If
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 11:51 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> > 1. Move the service to oak-core.
> > 2. Require oak-store-composite for deployments
> >
> > If we go with 1, we have simpler deployments ( one less bundle ).
> > If we
> > go with 2, we split the logic from the oak-store-composite bundle
On Tuesday 13 February 2018 12:03:34 Robert Munteanu wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> In OAK-7203 [1] we're discussing the best location for the
> MountInfoProviderService. The context is that due to the addition of
> the mounts concept a MountInfoProvider implementation is required and
> for OSGi deployment
Hi,
In OAK-7203 [1] we're discussing the best location for the
MountInfoProviderService. The context is that due to the addition of
the mounts concept a MountInfoProvider implementation is required and
for OSGi deployment we have to add oak-store-composite.
There are two options here:
1. Move
15 matches
Mail list logo