Ok. Looking at the cleaning ideally needed for 2.7.4, I don't see it as being a good idea to link them anymore.
A "quick" follow on release sounds like a good idea. Syncing with Fuseki (see users@ email) is always going to be an issue if SDB releasesare off-cycle. Andy On Friday, 5 October 2012, Damian Steer <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 30/09/12 18:10, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> We have a reasonable number of reports of SDB including used with >> MS SQL Server, MySQL, PostgresQL and Oracle SQL 11g. >> >> It tests with HSQLDB and I've now added Derby (latest version) to >> the build setup and so that's in the standard build/test now. >> >> There has been one issue reported - on windows, it's possible to >> get parse warnings from the config file because the file base name >> isn't converted to a safe form when there is a drive letter. It's >> a warning, not an error. This will go away eventually. >> >> Choices: >> >> 1/ release SDB 1.3.5 with a dependency on Jena 2.7.3 >> >> 2/ release Jena 2.7.4, and update SDB 1.3.5 then release SDB 1.3.5 >> >> (there are internal changes that affect SDB 1.3.5 and make it >> incompatible with Jena 2.7.4) > > Mild preference for 1 given that we've had sufficient feedback on that > particular configuration, and a sooner-rather-than-later basis. > > Ideally crank the handle fairly quickly post-2.7.4 release? > > Damian > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAlBuvfUACgkQAyLCB+mTtykFjQCfexAtcdHGQGpRwgqa4casFS4x > FVoAniOJ1Zrg4MHnwRX2aAp95pRIpgQV > =Wpoz > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
