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
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,
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
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 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 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
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
[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 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:
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
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo