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 Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> on 2017/05/18 12:21:19 UTC
Intent to backport to 1.6 and 1.4: OAK-5741
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5741
(needed for a subsequent backport of OAK-5704)
Re: Intent to backport to 1.6 and 1.4: OAK-5741
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2017-05-19 09:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2017-05-19 08:16, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Julian Reschke
>> <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> (needed for a subsequent backport of OAK-5704)
>>
>> Probably we should wait for OAK-5704 for sometime after 1.7.0 is cut
>> and that build is subjected some longevity testing before backporting
>> it to branched
>>
>> Chetan Mehrotra
>
> Marcel left me with the task to get it into the next cut of 1.4 before
> going on PTO...
>
> FWIW, we should have cut 1.7.0 months ago...
So,
- proposed date for 1.7.0 is IMHO early next week -- how long do we want
to wait after that?
- trunk contains way more changes to Version Garbage Collection than
those in OAK-5741 - so whatever testing of 1.7.0 reveals has limited
applicability to what I intend to backport
While we're discussing, I'll start looking at the differences between
1.6 and 1.4, which will have to be backported anyway.
Best regards, Julian
Re: Intent to backport to 1.6 and 1.4: OAK-5741
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2017-05-19 08:16, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> (needed for a subsequent backport of OAK-5704)
>
> Probably we should wait for OAK-5704 for sometime after 1.7.0 is cut
> and that build is subjected some longevity testing before backporting
> it to branched
>
> Chetan Mehrotra
Marcel left me with the task to get it into the next cut of 1.4 before
going on PTO...
FWIW, we should have cut 1.7.0 months ago...
Re: Intent to backport to 1.6 and 1.4: OAK-5741
Posted by Chetan Mehrotra <ch...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
> (needed for a subsequent backport of OAK-5704)
Probably we should wait for OAK-5704 for sometime after 1.7.0 is cut
and that build is subjected some longevity testing before backporting
it to branched
Chetan Mehrotra
Re: Intent to backport to 1.6 and 1.4: OAK-5741
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2017-05-22 10:26, Michael Dürig wrote:
>
> Back to the list, which I unintentionally dropped.
>
>
> On 22.05.17 10:19, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2017-05-22 10:16, Michael Dürig wrote:
>>>
>>> AFIK this is a new feature, why are we backporting this?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> Because OAK-5704 relies on it.
>
> But why should we backport that on? It is a minor improvement. Unless
> there is a strong reason to do otherwise we should only backport bugs.
> ...
Why should we backport OAK-5704? It's a significant performance
improvement, which, in some cases, can make the difference whether a
VersionGC finishes within its time window or not.
That said, I disagree a *lot* with the statement:
"Unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise we should only backport
bugs."
It's certainly not covered by what we discussed a few weeks ago and what
led to
<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-doc/src/site/markdown/participating.md?r1=1598204&r2=1792601&pathrev=1792601&diff_format=h>
Best regards, Julian
Re: Intent to backport to 1.6 and 1.4: OAK-5741
Posted by Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>.
Back to the list, which I unintentionally dropped.
On 22.05.17 10:19, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2017-05-22 10:16, Michael Dürig wrote:
>>
>> AFIK this is a new feature, why are we backporting this?
>>
>> Michael
>
> Because OAK-5704 relies on it.
But why should we backport that on? It is a minor improvement. Unless
there is a strong reason to do otherwise we should only backport bugs.
Michael