I just updated to the latest from SVN and ran a build cycle on windows without problems with the units. I haven't done any significant testing in our platform suite and I'm not sure I'll get to it, but I am also in favor of a release as the bug fixes are worthwhile for us and we were about to kick of an approval process for 2.10.0 (so I rather change that to 2.10.1)
thanks Simon From: Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Date: 04/25/2013 03:03 PM Subject: Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle? Fixing JENA-440 (query timeouts) has taken longer than I'd hoped, then I was away for a couple of days. But the timeout changes are something I'm quite keen that is tested properly. Done now. I'll send email to users@ ASAP after forcing a deployment to the snapshot repository. The announcement will need JENA-440 and JENA-439 (wrong HTTP status code on timeouts) pointing out as worthy of testing. Everyone - this doesn't close the codebase to fixes - what other JIRA to aim for (but treat as blocking), Andy On 25/04/13 18:49, Rob Vesse wrote: > Andy > > So are we all OK with moving towards a next release? > > Other than finishing up some more tests for JENA-445 (the OpAsQuery with > sub-queries bug) I don't have anything else that I want to get in the > release, the release already includes a variety of bug fixes that I need > to close out some internal bugs here so getting it sooner rather than > later would be nice > > I can send out the email to the lists if you like? > > Rob > > > > On 4/19/13 11:06 AM, "Stephen Owens" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I ran all of our Turtle tests against it and it performed well, no >> complaints on any of the functionality. We had to change white space >> handling slightly in our test cases and it seems a little more permissive, >> a double semi-colon after a statement used to cause a syntax failure and >> is >> now silently passed. The new behaviour seems correct to me so no >> complaints. >> >> +1 >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Stephen Owens >> <[email protected] >>> wrote: >> >>> Big +1 for me. It has the concurrent modification fix that I've been >>> looking forward to. We use Turtle output fairly heavily so I'll give >>> 2.10.1 >>> a spin through our tests just to be sure it hasn't messed up anything. >>> I'll >>> try to do that over the weekend. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> There is one other change of note albeit minor. >>>> >>>> Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML). >>>> >>>> N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability). >>>> >>>> This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the >>>> odd >>>> question. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 for now >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1? >>>>>> >>>>>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active >>>>>> by >>>>>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've >>>>>> tried >>>>>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the >>>>>> detail >>>>>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I >>>>>> think >>>>>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the >>>>>> release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when >>>>>> might >>>>>> it >>>>>> be ready?) >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> * >>> * >>> *Stephen Owens* >>> CTO, ThoughtWire >>> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> * >> * >> *Stephen Owens* >> CTO, ThoughtWire >> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466 >
