Right. I'd like to retrench a bit and do a 3.3.1 next. I should have some time in the next month or three to do some Javadocs and so forth, and I think that might be valuable. OTOH, if there are grander ideas ready to move forward (e.g. Jena-over-Cassandra) I'm in no way opposed.
--- A. Soroka The University of Virginia Library > On Apr 5, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 05/04/17 15:27, A. Soroka wrote: >> What with the changes in the text indexing systems, I think 3.3.0 makes >> sense (we talked about this right?). Or were you meaning to consider between >> 3.3.1 and 3.4.0? > > 3.4.0 or 3.3.1. > > We are somewhat committed to 3.3.0 by now :-) > > Andy > >> >> --- >> A. Soroka >> The University of Virginia Library >> >>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 10:25 AM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> How are things looking for a 3.3.0 release? >>> >>> A lot of good stuff has happened and the clock tick is approaching. >>> >>> I'm offering to either be the release manager to help someone with it. >>> >>> What will be the next version number? >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> Thoughts: >>> >>> 1/ Our regular releases are 3.x.0 and we reserve 3.x.1/2/3 for >>> out of cycle releases. >>> >>> So next release is 3.4.0. >>> >>> 2/ Harmonise the version numbers. 3.x.0 for everything. Don't worry that >>> we then have "Fuseki1 3.x.0" and "Fuseki2 3.x.0". >>> >>> This may remove a small point of friction in the release eventually (not >>> this release) which is having to not reply repeated to the before/after >>> version questions from the maven release plugin. >>> >>> The last time I tried that (elsewhere) maven failed to update to the next >>> version properly and I ended up with a broken mess which is why I'm not >>> suggesting this second step this late in the cycle. >>
