My apologies for finding this so late. As you will know, Commons RDF has just recently moved into preparing a release candidate that includes Jena support, which I originally had prepared using Jena 3.1.0. As that RC was dropped for other reasons, I thought I could have a go at using the next Jena 3.1.1 as dependency.
I don't have much time to try out Jena while it's under development, as building Jena takes a very long time, also I didn't consider the SNAPSHOTs earlier as we didn't require what was new. BTW - I changed my vote to -0 as I don't think you need to block the release for this, but wanted to report what I got. As RM you can of course take it or leave it :) On 7 November 2016 at 13:56, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> 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 -- Stian Soiland-Reyes http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
