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 Alex Parvulescu <al...@apache.org> on 2014/07/09 18:06:48 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2 release is available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jackrabbit/oak/1.0.2/
The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/tags/jackrabbit-oak-1.0.2/
The SHA1 checksum of the archive is
54867d0583a0a5ff9503cf57481ad72f10d3796f.
A staged Maven repository is available for review at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejackrabbit-1019
The command for running automated checks against this release candidate is:
$ sh check-release.sh oak 1.0.2 54867d0583a0a5ff9503cf57481ad72f10d3796f
Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2.
The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
My vote is +1
best,
alex
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Marcel Reutegger <mr...@adobe.com>.
On 09/07/14 18:06, "Alex Parvulescu" <al...@apache.org> wrote:
>Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2.
>The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
>least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
All checks OK.
+1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Regards
Marcel
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2014-07-09 18:06, Alex Parvulescu wrote:
> ...
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
>
> My vote is +1
[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
OK, I take back my -1. I don't want to block the release.
Regards,
Thomas
On 10/07/14 16:06, "Marcel Reutegger" <mr...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Hi Thomas,
>
>I agree this should be fixed as soon as possible. But given this
>release also contains quite a number of fixes that are beneficial
>for many users of Oak, I think we should still release it. As you
>mentioned with Java 7 the issue is probably not that severe.
>
>WDYT?
>
>Regards
> Marcel
>
>Since we also have the Java 7 alternative
>
>On 10/07/14 14:40, "Thomas Mueller" <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm afraid I can't give +1 in this case, sorry.
>>
>>
>>[X] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>>
>>I can't recommend anybody to use Oak 1.0.2, because of severe performance
>>degradation. Personally, I would feel more comfortable if we first fix
>>those problems, and then release Oak 1.0.3. To avoid Oak getting a really
>>bad reputation.
>>
>>
>>I think I found one of the problematic performance degradations, it is
>>OAK-1703 ("Improve warning logged on concurrent Session access"). The
>>problem is that every time a SessionDelegate is created (and that seems
>>to
>>be very common), a new Exception is created, which is very slow in Java
>>due to fillInStackTrace. I think Java 7 will at some point stop filling
>>in
>>the stack trace, but many are still using Java 6.
>>
>>There seems to be a second performance degradation related to updating
>>ordered indexes. I don't know exactly what the problem is (somewhere in
>>AsyncIndexUpdate - OrderedPropertyIndexEditor.leave). At least there is a
>>workaround: don't use ordered indexes.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 10/07/14 09:55, "Thomas Mueller" <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>All tests OK on my side.
>>>
>>>I wonder, should we release Oak 1.0.2 if there is a large performance
>>>regression in the AsyncIndex update? So far I have no hard evidence that
>>>this is the case (somebody else tested it but didn't provide the
>>>profiling
>>>data so far). I would probably release Oak 1.0.2, then work on the
>>>regression, and release Oak 1.0.3 once it is fixed?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>On 09/07/14 22:08, "Michael Dürig" <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 9.7.14 6:06 , Alex Parvulescu wrote:
>>>>> [x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
>>>>
>>>>Michael
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Marcel Reutegger <mr...@adobe.com>.
Hi Thomas,
I agree this should be fixed as soon as possible. But given this
release also contains quite a number of fixes that are beneficial
for many users of Oak, I think we should still release it. As you
mentioned with Java 7 the issue is probably not that severe.
WDYT?
Regards
Marcel
Since we also have the Java 7 alternative
On 10/07/14 14:40, "Thomas Mueller" <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm afraid I can't give +1 in this case, sorry.
>
>
>[X] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
>
>I can't recommend anybody to use Oak 1.0.2, because of severe performance
>degradation. Personally, I would feel more comfortable if we first fix
>those problems, and then release Oak 1.0.3. To avoid Oak getting a really
>bad reputation.
>
>
>I think I found one of the problematic performance degradations, it is
>OAK-1703 ("Improve warning logged on concurrent Session access"). The
>problem is that every time a SessionDelegate is created (and that seems to
>be very common), a new Exception is created, which is very slow in Java
>due to fillInStackTrace. I think Java 7 will at some point stop filling in
>the stack trace, but many are still using Java 6.
>
>There seems to be a second performance degradation related to updating
>ordered indexes. I don't know exactly what the problem is (somewhere in
>AsyncIndexUpdate - OrderedPropertyIndexEditor.leave). At least there is a
>workaround: don't use ordered indexes.
>
>Regards,
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>On 10/07/14 09:55, "Thomas Mueller" <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>All tests OK on my side.
>>
>>I wonder, should we release Oak 1.0.2 if there is a large performance
>>regression in the AsyncIndex update? So far I have no hard evidence that
>>this is the case (somebody else tested it but didn't provide the
>>profiling
>>data so far). I would probably release Oak 1.0.2, then work on the
>>regression, and release Oak 1.0.3 once it is fixed?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Thomas
>>
>>
>>On 09/07/14 22:08, "Michael Dürig" <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 9.7.14 6:06 , Alex Parvulescu wrote:
>>>> [x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
>>>
>>>Michael
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com>.
I logged OAK-1964 to track the fillInStackTrace issue.
On 10/07/14 14:40, "Thomas Mueller" <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm afraid I can't give +1 in this case, sorry.
>
>
>[X] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
>
>I can't recommend anybody to use Oak 1.0.2, because of severe performance
>degradation. Personally, I would feel more comfortable if we first fix
>those problems, and then release Oak 1.0.3. To avoid Oak getting a really
>bad reputation.
>
>
>I think I found one of the problematic performance degradations, it is
>OAK-1703 ("Improve warning logged on concurrent Session access"). The
>problem is that every time a SessionDelegate is created (and that seems to
>be very common), a new Exception is created, which is very slow in Java
>due to fillInStackTrace. I think Java 7 will at some point stop filling in
>the stack trace, but many are still using Java 6.
>
>There seems to be a second performance degradation related to updating
>ordered indexes. I don't know exactly what the problem is (somewhere in
>AsyncIndexUpdate - OrderedPropertyIndexEditor.leave). At least there is a
>workaround: don't use ordered indexes.
>
>Regards,
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>On 10/07/14 09:55, "Thomas Mueller" <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>All tests OK on my side.
>>
>>I wonder, should we release Oak 1.0.2 if there is a large performance
>>regression in the AsyncIndex update? So far I have no hard evidence that
>>this is the case (somebody else tested it but didn't provide the
>>profiling
>>data so far). I would probably release Oak 1.0.2, then work on the
>>regression, and release Oak 1.0.3 once it is fixed?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Thomas
>>
>>
>>On 09/07/14 22:08, "Michael Dürig" <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 9.7.14 6:06 , Alex Parvulescu wrote:
>>>> [x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
>>>
>>>Michael
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>.
On 10.7.14 2:40 , Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm afraid I can't give +1 in this case, sorry.
>
>
> [X] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
>
> I can't recommend anybody to use Oak 1.0.2, because of severe performance
> degradation. Personally, I would feel more comfortable if we first fix
> those problems, and then release Oak 1.0.3. To avoid Oak getting a really
> bad reputation.
>
>
> I think I found one of the problematic performance degradations, it is
> OAK-1703 ("Improve warning logged on concurrent Session access"). The
> problem is that every time a SessionDelegate is created (and that seems to
> be very common), a new Exception is created, which is very slow in Java
> due to fillInStackTrace. I think Java 7 will at some point stop filling in
> the stack trace, but many are still using Java 6.
This one should be easy to fix. I'll have a look as time permits.
>
> There seems to be a second performance degradation related to updating
> ordered indexes. I don't know exactly what the problem is (somewhere in
> AsyncIndexUpdate - OrderedPropertyIndexEditor.leave). At least there is a
> workaround: don't use ordered indexes.
This is probably OAK-1892 as I also have been seeing this.
Michael
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/07/14 09:55, "Thomas Mueller" <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> All tests OK on my side.
>>
>> I wonder, should we release Oak 1.0.2 if there is a large performance
>> regression in the AsyncIndex update? So far I have no hard evidence that
>> this is the case (somebody else tested it but didn't provide the profiling
>> data so far). I would probably release Oak 1.0.2, then work on the
>> regression, and release Oak 1.0.3 once it is fixed?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On 09/07/14 22:08, "Michael Dürig" <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9.7.14 6:06 , Alex Parvulescu wrote:
>>>> [x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
I'm afraid I can't give +1 in this case, sorry.
[X] -1 Do not release this package because...
I can't recommend anybody to use Oak 1.0.2, because of severe performance
degradation. Personally, I would feel more comfortable if we first fix
those problems, and then release Oak 1.0.3. To avoid Oak getting a really
bad reputation.
I think I found one of the problematic performance degradations, it is
OAK-1703 ("Improve warning logged on concurrent Session access"). The
problem is that every time a SessionDelegate is created (and that seems to
be very common), a new Exception is created, which is very slow in Java
due to fillInStackTrace. I think Java 7 will at some point stop filling in
the stack trace, but many are still using Java 6.
There seems to be a second performance degradation related to updating
ordered indexes. I don't know exactly what the problem is (somewhere in
AsyncIndexUpdate - OrderedPropertyIndexEditor.leave). At least there is a
workaround: don't use ordered indexes.
Regards,
Thomas
On 10/07/14 09:55, "Thomas Mueller" <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>All tests OK on my side.
>
>I wonder, should we release Oak 1.0.2 if there is a large performance
>regression in the AsyncIndex update? So far I have no hard evidence that
>this is the case (somebody else tested it but didn't provide the profiling
>data so far). I would probably release Oak 1.0.2, then work on the
>regression, and release Oak 1.0.3 once it is fixed?
>
>Regards,
>Thomas
>
>
>On 09/07/14 22:08, "Michael Dürig" <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On 9.7.14 6:06 , Alex Parvulescu wrote:
>>> [x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
>>
>>Michael
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
All tests OK on my side.
I wonder, should we release Oak 1.0.2 if there is a large performance
regression in the AsyncIndex update? So far I have no hard evidence that
this is the case (somebody else tested it but didn't provide the profiling
data so far). I would probably release Oak 1.0.2, then work on the
regression, and release Oak 1.0.3 once it is fixed?
Regards,
Thomas
On 09/07/14 22:08, "Michael Dürig" <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>On 9.7.14 6:06 , Alex Parvulescu wrote:
>> [x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
>
>Michael
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>.
On 9.7.14 6:06 , Alex Parvulescu wrote:
> [x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Michael
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Marcel Reutegger <mr...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
On 21/07/14 01:35, "Vikas Saurabh" <vi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Was this vote completed?
it was, but Alex is currently on vacation. I'll collect the votes
and post the results...
Regards
Marcel
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Vikas Saurabh <vi...@gmail.com>.
Was this vote completed?
Thanks,
Vikas
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Alex Parvulescu
<al...@apache.org> wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2.
[x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.2
BR,
Jukka Zitting