On 11.8.15 6:22 , Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2015-08-11 14:55, [email protected] wrote:
Author: mreutegg
Date: Tue Aug 11 12:55:41 2015
New Revision: 1695297
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1695297
Log:
OAK-2829: Comparing node states for external changes is too slow
OAK-3002: Optimize docCache and docChildrenCache invalidation by
filtering using journal
Merged revisions
1678023,1678171,1684820,1685590,1685964,1685977,1685989,1686023,1686032,1688179
from trunk
...
In general I'm +1000 on making 1.0 as similar to 1.2 as possible.
In this case however I'm a bit concerned about the timing: this would go
into Oak 1.0.19 which is also supposed to fix a critical bug that we
introduced in 1.0.16 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-3169).
Is it wise to push this rather large change into a release that people
running 1.0.16...18 simply *have* to switch to ASAP?
That's right the point I'm trying to bring across in the modularisation
discussion: if we had proper modules such a change wouldn't impact not
affected customers.
Michael
Best regards, Julian
