The only breaking change that I think we have had this far has been the artifacts moving to an Apache namespace. I probably would have voted against doing that too. I guess more importantly, I'd like us to get out a release soon rather than keep adding more features in. Theoretically the next release will be much quicker, so holding off isn't like we are putting it off for another year.
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 12, 2016, at 5:43 AM, Aaron D. Mihalik <aaron.miha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > FYI: There are already a handful of package name changes and other breaking > refactoring from 3.2.9 to 3.2.10. This would be along those lines and not > present any significant API changes. > >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM Puja Valiyil <puja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> -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 >>
