You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> on 2014/04/02 15:26:03 UTC
Oak 1.0 (and 0.20) release plan
Hi,
We've done a lot of stuff over the past two years and many parts of
Oak are already good enough for production use, so I think we should
start preparing for our 1.0 release.
Our original plan was to target for Jackrabbit 3.0 [1] but given the
problems we encountered [2] I think it would make more sense to do
separate Jackrabbit 2.8 and Oak 1.0 releases now, and revisit the idea
of a unified Jackrabbit 3.0 release once the dust settles.
With that background, here's my suggestion for a Oak 1.0 release plan:
* Cut Oak 0.20 from trunk already this week to get a clear branch point
* Create a 1.0 branch from that point, with version number to 1.0-SNAPSHOT
- this will be our release branch, with focus on stability
- all changes should go first to trunk, and merged to 1.0 only after
extra review
- if needed, we can cut a few more 0.2x releases from the branch
- when everything looks good, we cut Oak 1.0.0 from the branch
- afterwards the branch will be used for 1.0.x maintenance releases
* Update trunk version to 1.1-SNAPSHOT
- normal development may continue in the trunk
- any changes should remain backwards compatibile with 1.0
[1] http://markmail.org/message/u7dsue7ezb4cd4ox
[2] http://markmail.org/message/lgvbvw742zryhlmp
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: Oak 1.0 (and 0.20) release plan
Posted by Alex Parvulescu <al...@gmail.com>.
I agree with postponing OAK-1723, but I have created another issue related
to it: OAK-1738, or which I'm working on a patch now.
More issues that need to get in 1.0 are:
- OAK-1726 Improve support for local caching in DataStoreBlobStore
- OAK-1667 Encode Blob length as part of blobId in DataStoreBlobStore
For these Chetan asked me to merge them into 1.0 but unfortunately they are
not marked as fixed, so I'm not too sure what to do with them.
best,
alex
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alex Parvulescu
> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All existing open issues have been moved to version 1.1, 1.0 will be
> > focused on stability and commits will be carefully scrutinized.
>
> I cleaned up the current list of 1.0 issues. The remaining open ones are:
>
> * OAK-1723: Text content should not be stored as part of Index data
> * OAK-1667: Encode Blob length as part of blobId in DataStoreBlobStore
>
> What other changes still need to go into the release? Please tag all
> such issues with the 1.0 release version.
>
> > An important point to not forget now is to drop the 'alpha version
> warning'
> > in the release notes from the 1.0 branch, and possibly the trunk (and the
> > downloads page). Jukka would you like to do the honors?
>
> Thanks, done! Let's update the downloads page when the 1.0 release goes
> out.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
Re: Oak 1.0 (and 0.20) release plan
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alex Parvulescu
<al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All existing open issues have been moved to version 1.1, 1.0 will be
> focused on stability and commits will be carefully scrutinized.
I cleaned up the current list of 1.0 issues. The remaining open ones are:
* OAK-1723: Text content should not be stored as part of Index data
* OAK-1667: Encode Blob length as part of blobId in DataStoreBlobStore
What other changes still need to go into the release? Please tag all
such issues with the 1.0 release version.
> An important point to not forget now is to drop the 'alpha version warning'
> in the release notes from the 1.0 branch, and possibly the trunk (and the
> downloads page). Jukka would you like to do the honors?
Thanks, done! Let's update the downloads page when the 1.0 release goes out.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: Oak 1.0 (and 0.20) release plan
Posted by Alex Parvulescu <al...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
A quick followup on the plan.
We had some minor issues with the apache infra concerning the release.
Now things are back on track, see the vote mail, don't hesitate to
participate!
I've cut the branch from the release point, extra commits did not get into
1.0, we'll discuss that later.
All existing open issues have been moved to version 1.1, 1.0 will be
focused on stability and commits will be carefully scrutinized.
An important point to not forget now is to drop the 'alpha version warning'
in the release notes from the 1.0 branch, and possibly the trunk (and the
downloads page).
Jukka would you like to do the honors?
Did I leave anything out?
best,
alex
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've done a lot of stuff over the past two years and many parts of
> Oak are already good enough for production use, so I think we should
> start preparing for our 1.0 release.
>
> Our original plan was to target for Jackrabbit 3.0 [1] but given the
> problems we encountered [2] I think it would make more sense to do
> separate Jackrabbit 2.8 and Oak 1.0 releases now, and revisit the idea
> of a unified Jackrabbit 3.0 release once the dust settles.
>
> With that background, here's my suggestion for a Oak 1.0 release plan:
>
> * Cut Oak 0.20 from trunk already this week to get a clear branch point
> * Create a 1.0 branch from that point, with version number to 1.0-SNAPSHOT
> - this will be our release branch, with focus on stability
> - all changes should go first to trunk, and merged to 1.0 only after
> extra review
> - if needed, we can cut a few more 0.2x releases from the branch
> - when everything looks good, we cut Oak 1.0.0 from the branch
> - afterwards the branch will be used for 1.0.x maintenance releases
> * Update trunk version to 1.1-SNAPSHOT
> - normal development may continue in the trunk
> - any changes should remain backwards compatibile with 1.0
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/u7dsue7ezb4cd4ox
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/lgvbvw742zryhlmp
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>