Hi,
since it is quite clear that we will have API incompatible changes in
2.x vs. 1.x we need to keep a 1.x branch for further bug-fixing/small
improvements also after 2.0. From my point of view the trunk should
reflect the most up-to-date development which means 2.x and 1.x would
have its own branch. Only if we agree that 2.0 is a very long term goal
and we may have quite a number of improvements in 1.x in the mean time
it would be better to keep the trunk for 1.x.
However as Thomas wrote not all improvements we plan have to land in
2.0, but 2.0 may be a starting point with better basics to start from
and thus 2.0 maybe is not a so long term goal.
The need for branching will arise with the first API incompatible change
or an improvement we don't want to maintain in 1.x should be integrated.
For the 2.0 features:
- switch to Java 1.6
- my main interest is in the parsing part and here I would like to see
the current parsers be replaced by a cleaner approach Maruan has
started with together with parsing on demand;
in 2.0 this parser might not be able to parse all documents we can
handle in 1.x but can be improved later;
this kind of parsing will also require changes and refactoring at the
COS level; defining an API here we can build on should be part of 2.0
Best regards,
Timo
Am 18.04.2013 23:32, schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler:
Hi,
Am 18.04.2013 22:15, schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
I'd think that we should start scoping out 2.0 - what will be covered
under that topic.
> In addition I would see us doing additional bug fix releases and
minor enhancements prior
> to releasing 2.0. My preference would be to branch out 2.0 and keep
trunk for
> working on 1.x
Hmm, we already have a 1.8 branch, which can be used for further bugfix
releases. Do you want to use the 1.x trunk for a possible 1.9 release?
as this would be clearer but maybe we should postpone that discussion
until
we have a better understanding what 2.0 means.
I don't want to start a discussion about possible changes at this point.
Whatever we will do, I'm pretty sure that there will be some api changes
and
we should use this fact as basis for our discussion if we branch or not.
Maruan Sahyoun
Am 18.04.2013 um 21:11 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <andr...@lehmi.de>:
Hi,
what is our next target after releasing 1.8.0 and 1.8.1?
We already started some discussions about that topic, but I'd like to
have
clarification. Is it time to go for a 2.0 version? If we agree to
that goal,
how should we proceed? Should we branch or simply use the trunk?
I'd prefer to continue using the trunk. We are still able to release
bugfix versions using the 1.8-branch. Even a new 1.9 feature release
should be possible by branching the 1.8-branch.
WDYT?
BR
Andreas Lehmkühler
BR
Andreas Lehmkühler
--
Timo Boehme
OntoChem GmbH
H.-Damerow-Str. 4
06120 Halle/Saale
T: +49 345 4780474
F: +49 345 4780471
timo.boe...@ontochem.com
_____________________________________________________________________
OntoChem GmbH
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Lutz Weber
Sitz: Halle / Saale
Registergericht: Stendal
Registernummer: HRB 215461
_____________________________________________________________________
