Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 (take 2)

2016-03-03 Thread Amit Jain 
Based on Marcel's recommendation, changing my vote to -1.

Thanks
Amit

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Marcel Reutegger  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> meanwhile I created an issue for the problem seen
> with the release candidate: OAK-4085
>
> I still think we should cancel the release because
> the node type registry is malformed after an upgrade
> with reregistered node types.
>
> with the votes we currently have, the release would
> still go out. anyone with a +1 willing to change his
> mind?
>
> Regards
>  Marcel
>
> On 03/03/16 11:25, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have to change my vote based on further testing to
> >
> >-1
> >
> >As noted earlier I was looking into an upgrade issue
> >reported by Zygmunt Wiercioch (OAK-4077). This fix
> >is included in the 1.4.0 release candidate. However
> >there appears to be a more severe problem with node
> >type definitions in the repository.
> >
> >A while back OAK-3584 fixed the indexes for names of
> >item definitions. This change works well for new
> >repositories or newly registered node types, but it
> >makes the situation worse when an existing node type
> >is reregistered. The result after an upgrade may look
> >like this:
> >
> >my:type
> >  + jcr:childNodeDefinition
> >  + jcr:childNodeDefinition[1]
> >  + jcr:childNodeDefinition[2]
> >  + jcr:propertyDefinition
> >  + jcr:propertyDefinition[1]
> >
> >The duplicate child nodes with explicit and implicit
> >index 1 is not the only issue. It may also happen that
> >there are duplicate item definitions after a node type
> >is reregistered. The NodeTypeDiff is also affected and
> >may report an item definition is removed even though
> >it is still there.
> >
> >In my view these are rather severe issues for users
> >upgrading from earlier Oak versions and we should not
> >release 1.4.0 with these kind of problems.
> >
> >Regards
> > Marcel
> >
> >
> >
> >On 03/03/16 09:47, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>On 02/03/16 17:34, "Davide Giannella" wrote:
> >>>Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0.
> >>>The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> >>>least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
> >>
> >>All checks OK.
> >>
> >>+1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0
> >>
> >>Regards
> >> Marcel
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 (take 2)

2016-03-03 Thread Julian Reschke 

On 2016-03-03 16:22, Marcel Reutegger wrote:

Hi,

meanwhile I created an issue for the problem seen
with the release candidate: OAK-4085

I still think we should cancel the release because
the node type registry is malformed after an upgrade
with reregistered node types.

with the votes we currently have, the release would
still go out. anyone with a +1 willing to change his
mind?

Regards
  Marcel


As you have looked at this, and think it's serious, I'll change my vote 
to -1 then.


Best regards, Julian

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 (take 2)

2016-03-03 Thread Davide Giannella 
-1 as of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4085

Davide

On 02/03/2016 16:54, Davide Giannella wrote:
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0
>
> Davide
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 (take 2)

2016-03-03 Thread Marcel Reutegger 
Hi,

meanwhile I created an issue for the problem seen
with the release candidate: OAK-4085

I still think we should cancel the release because
the node type registry is malformed after an upgrade
with reregistered node types.

with the votes we currently have, the release would
still go out. anyone with a +1 willing to change his
mind?

Regards
 Marcel

On 03/03/16 11:25, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I have to change my vote based on further testing to
>
>-1
>
>As noted earlier I was looking into an upgrade issue
>reported by Zygmunt Wiercioch (OAK-4077). This fix
>is included in the 1.4.0 release candidate. However
>there appears to be a more severe problem with node
>type definitions in the repository.
>
>A while back OAK-3584 fixed the indexes for names of
>item definitions. This change works well for new
>repositories or newly registered node types, but it
>makes the situation worse when an existing node type
>is reregistered. The result after an upgrade may look
>like this:
>
>my:type
>  + jcr:childNodeDefinition
>  + jcr:childNodeDefinition[1]
>  + jcr:childNodeDefinition[2]
>  + jcr:propertyDefinition
>  + jcr:propertyDefinition[1]
>
>The duplicate child nodes with explicit and implicit
>index 1 is not the only issue. It may also happen that
>there are duplicate item definitions after a node type
>is reregistered. The NodeTypeDiff is also affected and
>may report an item definition is removed even though
>it is still there.
>
>In my view these are rather severe issues for users
>upgrading from earlier Oak versions and we should not
>release 1.4.0 with these kind of problems.
>
>Regards
> Marcel
>
>
>
>On 03/03/16 09:47, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>On 02/03/16 17:34, "Davide Giannella" wrote:
>>>Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0.
>>>The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
>>>least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>>
>>All checks OK.
>>
>>+1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0
>>
>>Regards
>> Marcel
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 (take 2)

2016-03-03 Thread Marcel Reutegger 
Hi,

I have to change my vote based on further testing to

-1

As noted earlier I was looking into an upgrade issue
reported by Zygmunt Wiercioch (OAK-4077). This fix
is included in the 1.4.0 release candidate. However
there appears to be a more severe problem with node
type definitions in the repository.

A while back OAK-3584 fixed the indexes for names of
item definitions. This change works well for new
repositories or newly registered node types, but it
makes the situation worse when an existing node type
is reregistered. The result after an upgrade may look
like this:

my:type
  + jcr:childNodeDefinition
  + jcr:childNodeDefinition[1]
  + jcr:childNodeDefinition[2]
  + jcr:propertyDefinition
  + jcr:propertyDefinition[1]

The duplicate child nodes with explicit and implicit
index 1 is not the only issue. It may also happen that
there are duplicate item definitions after a node type
is reregistered. The NodeTypeDiff is also affected and
may report an item definition is removed even though
it is still there.

In my view these are rather severe issues for users
upgrading from earlier Oak versions and we should not
release 1.4.0 with these kind of problems.

Regards
 Marcel



On 03/03/16 09:47, "Marcel Reutegger" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 02/03/16 17:34, "Davide Giannella" wrote:
>>Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0.
>>The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
>>least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
>All checks OK.
>
>+1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0
>
>Regards
> Marcel
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 (take 2)

2016-03-03 Thread Tommaso Teofili 
+1

Tommaso

Il giorno gio 3 mar 2016 alle ore 09:47 Marcel Reutegger 
ha scritto:

> Hi,
>
> On 02/03/16 17:34, "Davide Giannella" wrote:
> >Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0.
> >The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> >least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> All checks OK.
>
> +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0
>
> Regards
>  Marcel
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 (take 2)

2016-03-03 Thread Marcel Reutegger 
Hi,

On 02/03/16 17:34, "Davide Giannella" wrote:
>Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0.
>The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
>least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.

All checks OK.

+1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0

Regards
 Marcel

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 (take 2)

2016-03-02 Thread Amit Jain 
Hi,

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Davide Giannella  wrote:

> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>

+1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0

Thanks
Amit

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 (take 2)

2016-03-02 Thread Julian Reschke 

On 2016-03-02 17:34, Davide Giannella wrote:

...


[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0

Best regards, Julian

[VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 (take 2)

2016-03-02 Thread Davide Giannella 

A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0 release is available at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jackrabbit/oak/1.4.0/

The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:

   
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/tags/jackrabbit-oak-1.4.0/

The SHA1 checksum of the archive is
8b3555f49cc7aa2db04734a7e083ddafa7833842.

A staged Maven repository is available for review at:

https://repository.apache.org/

The command for running automated checks against this release candidate is:

$ sh check-release.sh oak 1.4.0 8b3555f49cc7aa2db04734a7e083ddafa7833842

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0.
The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.0
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Davide