Hi, On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Julian Reschke <[email protected]> wrote: > Should we port *every* fix back? (not a rhetorical question).
Only those that people are asking for (or that we can assume people to run into). Additionally, we should ideally only backport low-risk bug fixes, not wider improvements or other more risky changes. The main focus in a maintenance branch like 2.4 is stability so upgrading from 2.4.x to 2.4.(x+1) should never break anything, which limits the amount and type of changes that should be backported. On this specific issue, the mentioned JCR-3209 is a little bit broader change that modifies the way lock tokens are handled by the WebDAV layer. Thus I'd rather keep it out of the 2.4 branch now that 2.4.0 is already out. That said, the "Bad check digit" issue sounds like something that shouldn't have happened even before JCR-3209. Does it only occur with the WebDAV layer or can it be reproduced with a local Jackrabbit instance? Perhaps we can come up with a more focused fix for the 2.4 branch that doesn't change the externally visible lock token format like JCR-3209 does. BR, Jukka Zitting
