At some point there just has to be a 3.1.1. Jena's release cycle is already too slow.
-- Paul Houle [email protected] On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, at 08:56 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > On 07/11/16 00:05, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > > I'm afraid my vote is: > > > > -1 (non-binding) > > > > because of broken initializers and confusing LICENSE in source archive. > > > > - repository JARs/POMs; broken initializers? > > IMO A single problem is not grounds for redoing a release. Just look at > JIRA. > > What is more, 3.1.1 has been signalled for over 2 months. If you could > test against development snapshots much earlier in the cycle that would > be helpful and then raise issues before the RM invests time in the > release process. > > > Another thing, LICENSE file of jena-3.1.1-source-release.zip says > > > > > >> The following files contain code contributed by Plugged In Software: > >> > >> src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdf/arp/ExtendedHandler.java > >> src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdf/arp/impl/XMLHandler.java > >> src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdf/arp/ARP.java > > > > but the correct file paths are presumably these under jena-core/ and > > in different packages: > > > > jena-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdfxml/xmlinput/ExtendedHandler.java > > jena-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdfxml/xmlinput/impl/XMLHandler.java > > jena-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jena/rdfxml/xmlinput/ARP.java > > > > I wonder why these files have BOTH the Apache license and BSD > > license.. > > It is a combination of a contribution (BSD) and later work (AL). > > Back when it was contributed, licensing issues were not so clearly > expressed (anywhere, not just Jena). > > We could not ask Plugged In Software for a Software Grant (the company > did not exist). > > > Related in NOTICE: > > > >> Apache Jena > >> Copyright 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 The Apache Software Foundation > > That can be changed. > > >> .. > >> - Copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 > >> Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP > > Not ours to change. > > > > > > > I guess no need to list all the years, 2011-2016 and 2001-2009 would > > suffice. > > There are, or at least were, differences of opinion in legal circles > about that. > > > I would have called this version 3.2.0 instead - I remember several > > times when a "patch" update of Jena has lots of big changes in other > > code; I guess after 6 months of hard work we can't aim for patch > > compatibility anymore so it's just fair to go for 3.2.0 even if > > there's nothing new politically. > > See discussion about a 3 month release cycle. > > Andy
