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 Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com.INVALID> on 2017/12/06 09:39:12 UTC
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
Posted by Andrei Dulceanu <an...@gmail.com>.
On 2017-12-06 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version
> 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't
> think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
>
+1
2017-12-06 12:56 GMT+02:00 Marcel Reutegger <mr...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> On 06/12/17 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
>> I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify
>> version 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing
>> process, I don't think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big
>> impact on users.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Regards
> Marcel
>
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
Posted by Marcel Reutegger <mr...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 06/12/17 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify
> version 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing
> process, I don't think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big
> impact on users.
+1
Regards
Marcel
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
Posted by Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>.
On 06/12/2017 09:39, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
+1
On 06/12/2017 09:41, Torgeir Veimo wrote:
> Upgrading lucene to version 6 would probably warrant using 2.0, but that's
> not ready yet for 1.8?
Yes that would IMO justify a major version change as it will probably
impact considerably an upgrade/update process.
D.
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2017-12-06 10:39, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
+1
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
Posted by Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Hi,
> Upgrading lucene to version 6 would probably warrant using 2.0, but that's not ready yet for 1.8?
No, it's not yet ready for 1.8.
Regards,
Thomas
Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0
Posted by Torgeir Veimo <to...@gmail.com>.
Upgrading lucene to version 6 would probably warrant using 2.0, but that's
not ready yet for 1.8?
On 6 December 2017 at 10:39, Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I vote for 1.8. I don't see any big changes that would justify version
> 2.0. The modularization (moving code around) is an ongoing process, I don't
> think this is "fixed", and shouldn't have a big impact on users.
>
>
--
-Tor