On 2012-02-10 12:23, Jukka Zitting wrote:
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.
No, the problem has been around since JCR 2.0, as far as I can tell.
If it's worth fixing, the best way to fix it would be to align with
trunk. Please no diverging strategies!
Best regards, Julian
