Oak 1.4 roadmap

[Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>]

Hello everyone,

as we're approaching to a year since we released Oak 1.2 here's a
proposal of soft-dates for releasing 1.4. With soft-dates I mean they
could shift a bit around depending on issue needs.

The team already went through the exercise of scheduling what's not so
important for 1.6.

# Major Feature Freeze - 1st February - Oak 1.3.15
Progressive commit slow down and risk-control starting after 1.3.15 cut.

# 1.4 Branching - 29th February - Oak 1.4.0 - Oak 1.5.0
Branching of 1.4, release 1.4.0, release 1.5.0. They should all be the
same code from an Oak perspective.

>From here on we'll resume the regular bi-weekly unstable cut (1.5.x) and
a stable cut every 3 weeks (1.0, 1.2, 1.4).

Cheers
Davide

Re: Oak 1.4 roadmap

[Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>]

On 2016-01-22 13:39, Davide Giannella wrote:
> On 22/01/2016 10:02, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> 1) Do we need to schedule a new stable Jackrabbit release? Right now
>> we use 2.11.3 which is labeled "unstable release".
> Right. Forgot about that. We have two options: branch yet again
> jackrabbit, always use trunk only from now on.
>
> As we're going towards a maintenance hell in terms or version I'm for
> using only trunk for jackrabbit. So having only 2.11.x.

...in which case we probably should label it "stable".

Dunno whether we need separate versions; haven't done any Jackrabbit 
work in a long time. Maybe Angela has an opinion?

> ...
> the topic is quite intricate, specially for Oak. If I restrict the
> discussion to JR and by looking at the last updates from our downloads
> page I can see:
>
> - OCM 2.0.0 (10-July-2012). Do we still maintain this project? There
> were a recent email about it.
> - Jackrabbit 2.2.13 (04-October-2012)
> - Jackrabbit 2.4 (Oct 24, 2013)
> - Jackrabbit 2.6.5 (December 2nd, 2013)
> - Jackrabbit 2.8 (June 4th, 2015)
> - Jackrabbit 2.10.1 (May 21st, 2015)
>
> IMO we should drop the support for 2.2 and 2.4 at least. Ideally 2.6 as
> well.
>
> thoughts?

+1 on eol-ling as many as possible. Do we need to make "final" releases 
of those?

Best regard, Julian

Re: Oak 1.4 roadmap

[Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>]

On 22/01/2016 10:02, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> 1) Do we need to schedule a new stable Jackrabbit release? Right now
> we use 2.11.3 which is labeled "unstable release".
Right. Forgot about that. We have two options: branch yet again
jackrabbit, always use trunk only from now on.

As we're going towards a maintenance hell in terms or version I'm for
using only trunk for jackrabbit. So having only 2.11.x.

If we branch we'll have to maintain as of now:

JR - 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.10, 2.12, trunk
Oak - 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, trunk

>
> 2) Once we have a new branch, we'll have to maintain three stable old
> branches. We need to figure out a end-of-life strategy for Oak 1.0
> sooner or later. (Which reminds me we need to do that for a few
> ancient Jackrabbit branches as well).

the topic is quite intricate, specially for Oak. If I restrict the
discussion to JR and by looking at the last updates from our downloads
page I can see:

- OCM 2.0.0 (10-July-2012). Do we still maintain this project? There
were a recent email about it.
- Jackrabbit 2.2.13 (04-October-2012)
- Jackrabbit 2.4 (Oct 24, 2013)
- Jackrabbit 2.6.5 (December 2nd, 2013)
- Jackrabbit 2.8 (June 4th, 2015)
- Jackrabbit 2.10.1 (May 21st, 2015)

IMO we should drop the support for 2.2 and 2.4 at least. Ideally 2.6 as
well.

thoughts?

Davide

Re: Oak 1.4 roadmap

[Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>]

On 2016-01-21 09:23, Davide Giannella wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> as we're approaching to a year since we released Oak 1.2 here's a
> proposal of soft-dates for releasing 1.4. With soft-dates I mean they
> could shift a bit around depending on issue needs.
>
> The team already went through the exercise of scheduling what's not so
> important for 1.6.
>
> # Major Feature Freeze - 1st February - Oak 1.3.15
> Progressive commit slow down and risk-control starting after 1.3.15 cut.
>
> # 1.4 Branching - 29th February - Oak 1.4.0 - Oak 1.5.0
> Branching of 1.4, release 1.4.0, release 1.5.0. They should all be the
> same code from an Oak perspective.
>
>>From here on we'll resume the regular bi-weekly unstable cut (1.5.x) and
> a stable cut every 3 weeks (1.0, 1.2, 1.4).
>
> Cheers
> Davide

+1 in general.

Comments:

1) Do we need to schedule a new stable Jackrabbit release? Right now we 
use 2.11.3 which is labeled "unstable release".

2) Once we have a new branch, we'll have to maintain three stable old 
branches. We need to figure out a end-of-life strategy for Oak 1.0 
sooner or later. (Which reminds me we need to do that for a few ancient 
Jackrabbit branches as well).

Best regards, Julian