Andy, as a slightly off-topic question, has it been decided to only introduce org.apache.jena packages in a back-ward compatible way? The last I read on the topic, it seemed there was a back-and-forth on this, but nothing fixed. I am asking because for us, an incompatible rename would be a very difficult situation in terms of client adoptions
Simon From: Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 06/28/2012 09:32 AM Subject: Re: Jena 2.7.2? On 21/06/12 23:34, Ian Dickinson wrote: > On 21/06/12 23:23, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> What do PMCers think? Do you have the energy to check another release? > Do the right thing, not the expedient thing. The "right thing" IMO is a release so we can get a stable cut and make it easier to make further changes which might be best given time to bed down (e.g. TDB commit optimizations). One that does require a bit of space is sorting out RIOT, and the new reader stuff, putting it in core and maybe renaming as org.apache.jena (need to make it a smooth transition but I think that is leave SysRIOT as a stub). Time to do a 2.7.2 build ... Andy > >> (as it's a minimum of 3 +1's from the PMC that is needed for a release). >> >> Andy >> >> PS >> >> I was going to suggest jumping all the version numbers to be the same >> sometime - e.g. 2.10.0 as being higher than all the modules as less >> confusing. > +1 to eventually sync'ing release numbers > >> 1/ Not sure we want to loose the ability to have single-module releases >> just yet. >> 2/ This is a bug fix release - a jump in minor version number seems >> wrong. > +1 to not on a bug-fix release > > Ian > >
