my 2 cents:

since this might look a little easier than it is in reality i'd give my +1
to a feature branch (4.0.0).
=> rather take a little more time and upgrade more deps and test
thoroughly.. note that you might scare
away NEW installations with old dependencies.. (when i first installed i'd
thought i'd rather upgrade deps myself than installing a five year old HDFS)


1. for us at semantic-web.com it would be really important to have the
latest rdf4j version
    (note: we're upgrading to 2.3. due to some critical rdf4j 2.2* bug in
our product)
2. there won't be any backwards compatibility with respect to the
requirement of having to install accumulo/hdfs, mongo anew..
    (note: we were testing our installation with accumulo 1.8.1 + hadoop
2.9.5 on DC/OS and with a relatively new version of mongo on premise).
    (note: later accumulo versions depend on a newer libthrift version,
which requires a knowledgeable person to take a look)

kr jürgen

[1] https://semver.org/

*Jürgen Jakobitsch*
Innovation Director
Semantic Web Company GmbH
EU: +43-14021235 <+43%201%204021235>
US: (415) 800-3776
Mobile: +43-676-6212710 <+43%20676%206212710>

*Download now
White Paper*
*Get certified! <https://www.poolparty.biz/academy/> **PoolParty Academy*

*PoolParty selected as a KMWorld Trend-Setting Product for 2017*

| web       : http://www.turnguard.com
| foaf      : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
| g+        : https://plus.google.com/111233759991616358206/posts
| skype     : jakobitsch-punkt
| xmlns:tg  = "http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard#";
| blockchain : https://onename.com/turnguard

2018-04-09 19:55 GMT+02:00 Jeff Dasch <hcs...@gmail.com>:

> The simplest thing for the community is to have a single branch of
> development that is being supported/maintained.  Otherwise we're always
> forward/backporting new features that apply to both versions which is a
> pain.  I do think we should push a 3.x branch so we can always do a future
> 3.2.13 release if requested by the community.  Then someone should bump
> master to 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT, and then we should pull in PR 245.
> There have been a couple commits on master since the 3.2.12 release.  Do we
> want to cut a 3.2.13 release with just those remaining commits, or should
> they all get rolled into the 4.0.0 release?
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Chilton, Kevin <kevin.chil...@parsons.com
> >
> wrote:
> > Hey Rya devs,
> >
> > I'd like to get PR #245 (RYA-405) pulled in.  This is a pretty big
> > dependency change, and should probably involve a major version increment
> to
> > 4.0.0.  Could we get a discussion going on the devlist about if we want
> to
> > support a 3.x branch and a 4.x branch going forward, or just update
> master
> > to 4.x.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> >
> > NOTICE: This email message and all attachments transmitted with it may
> > contain privileged and confidential information, and information that is
> > protected by, and proprietary to, Parsons Corporation, and is intended
> > solely for the use of the addressee for the specific purpose set forth in
> > this communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> > recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination,
> > distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is
> > strictly prohibited, and you should delete this message and all copies
> and
> > backups thereof. The recipient may not further distribute or use any of
> the
> > information contained herein without the express written authorization of
> > the sender. If you have received this message in error, or if you have
> any
> > questions regarding the use of the proprietary information contained
> > therein, please contact the sender of this message immediately, and the
> > sender will provide you with further instructions.
> >

Reply via email to