-1 I think we should wait.  I'd like us to have one non-breaking official 
release on Apache before we start adding changes that will greatly effect end 
users.  Dramatically changing the Api seems like a bad idea since users will 
have no choice but to update.

Theoretically once we get past the first release, they would occur on a much 
more regular period.  So I don't think it's a big deal to wait until we have a 
4.0 release, and keep 3.2.10 as the current packaging.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 12, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Aaron D. Mihalik <aaron.miha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 fix it before the next RC
> We'll inconvenience some users now, but I'd rather fix it now, before the
> pool of users grows much larger.
> The issue being that we have a number pull request outstanding, and it
> would break those pull requests. So we're somewhat inconveniencing
> ourselves.
> We had some discussion before we moved it to Apache, and decided to hold
> off until after the move to Apache.
> --Aaron
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:09 AM Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Convention in other Java-based ASF projects is to have a package of
>> "org.apache.<foo>...". I was recently reminded that Rya still is using
>> "mvm.rya...".
>> Has there been any discussion about ultimately doing an s/package
>> mvm.rya/package org.apache.rya/ in the future?
>> I wanted to mention it before we got to another release candidate :).
>> Long term, it's probably a good idea, but there's a good argument in
>> doing a release of Rya at the ASF which maintains the old package name
>> for the sake of your users.
>> - Josh

Reply via email to