+1 All sounds like a solid plan to me Rob
From: Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> Date: Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 21:05 To: dev@jena.apache.org <dev@jena.apache.org> Subject: Re: [Lazy] Jena5 Branch On 12/10/2023 10:40, Bruno Kinoshita wrote: ... > Given that I believe most of the Jena development should now be focused on > Jena5, wouldn't it make more sense to create a Jena4 branch, merge Jena5 > branch into main, and backport bug fixes to the Jena4 branch as needed? > > I think we might even be able to cut releases from that branch. The maven release plugin should work on a branch. > That way, I think we could say that the official version under development > is Jena5, and Jena4 is now in hotfix maintenance, until Jena5 is released > (plus whatever time we need/can to support it in the future). Good point about the showing jena5 is the "official version under development". Since 4.9.0, there are about 18 closed non-Jena5 issues, and 37 PRs mostly dependency upgrades. https://s.apache.org/jena-4.10.0-issues. I think we should do 4.10.0 as normal (which is "soon"ish), wait a bit to make sure nothing horrendous turns up, then switch. It creates space for 5.0.0 in the release cycle. That becomes the official split point jena4 and jena5. No more rebasing jena4 onto jena5! 5.0.0 might be a -beta or -M1 or -rc1, though I'm not sure how much take up they will at our scale. There are changes which will slow switch over, but other than that it's at the same usability level of 4.x.x. "main" is protected - no forced pushes - so seeing Jena5 hasn't got some that it is reasonably stable, has been building SNAPSHOTs and has been used. Andy > > Cheers > > Bruno > > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 11:05, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> On 06/10/2023 11:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> There's a large PR for a new branch "jena5" >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/2029 >>> >>> of what I've managed to do so far. >>> >>> It's not finished. >>> >>> Andy >> >> I'd like to bring the PR in as a branch and setup Jenkins to produce >> snapshot artifacts. >> >> The branch might still liable to force pushes to keep the history >> comprehensible, such as rebasing it to main, and finally when switching >> to this branch to be main if we use rebase and merge. >> >> I think having a baseline for people to look at and maybe even try out, >> is better than waiting until the very last minute to become Jena5. >> >> Maybe we should use rebase and merge" for PRs from now on? >> >> Andy >> >
