I plan to take a look at the Fuseki as a WAR again at some point but am fairly snowed under at the moment
Also it's a non-trivial change which may also require some maven and svn shenanigans if we want to generate both a WAR and the existing runnable JAR packaging (possibly splitting the fuseki module into a fuseki-core and fuseki-war). Plus I have no idea if the provided patch is all that is needed or not. I would rather not do this in a rush or for a point release, this should be at least a minor if not major release for Fuseki when we make that change. Just because something has lots of votes and is a good idea doesn't mean we should rush it! Rob On 9/12/12 2:05 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 06/09/12 21:28, Simon Helsen wrote: >> hi everyone, >> >> I was wondering if there is a chance to get a 2.7.4 release soon. There >> have been numerous fixes since 2.7.3 and unfortunately, we are not >>allowed >> to adopt a non-released snapshot. Basic internal testing seems to >>suggest >> 2.7.4 is pretty stable. Does not mean we would not find more bugs, but >>it >> would fit the frequent small service releases. As a non-committer, I >>don't >> think I can help the process (other than testing) >> >> thanks >> >> Simon >> > >The changes (post TDB 0.9.3) for optimized and correct transactions are >new and really could do with bedding down. If you could go beyond basic >testing that would be helpful so things get raised before a .4 release. > >Quite a few JIRA have had input in the last week or so and I haven't >managed to get a picture of where we are. The Fuseki as a WAR file >(JENA-201) has lots of votes. > >The deprecations in jena-core could do with some inspection before a >release because the point of deprecating them is that they can then get >removed. > >The SDB release cycle is going quite well - and doing a lightweight >community "Release Candidate" seems to have been a success. We have >reports, and something has been reported that could do with investigation. > >It would be nice to release LARQ as a post-incubator. > >Things are busy. > >I wonder if an RC phase is the best way forward. > >(all) What things would ideally be done before a RC phase can start? > > Andy >
