I am cool to finally get on the 2.0 kool aid and execute the plan as described by Tim below for our next release.
+1. Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Principal Data Scientist, Engineering Administrative Office (3010) Manager, NSF & Open Source Projects Formulation and Development Offices (8212) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 180-503E, Mailstop: 180-503 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 8/28/17, 8:12 AM, "Konstantin Gribov" <[email protected]> wrote: Tim, +1 to making restructuring master to 2.x shape. If we can at least migrate modularization patches, dependency changes and move to java 8 it certainly will be a good step forward and big reduction of technical debt. On пн, 28 авг. 2017, 16:52 Bob Paulin <[email protected]> wrote: > Tim, > > +1 You've done an admirable job of dual maintenance but it sounds like > it became a heavy tax on development. Releasing would allow us to get > back to "trunk" based development again. Then we could focus on porting > any missed patches and start looking for any regressions. I also like > the idea of picking up Java 8 as many other projects are starting to do > this. > > - Bob > > > > On 8/28/2017 8:32 AM, Allison, Timothy B. wrote: > > All, > > > > We're getting some increasing deltas btwn the 2.0 and trunk branches. > Many of these are my fault; I gave up making updates to 2.0 around > April/May, I think. > > > > What would people think of punting on some of the desired goals of 2.0 > (e.g. chaining parsers, more structured but still simple metadata) and > releasing 2.0 soonish...say 2.0-BETA end of September? > > > > We've been able to make some major improvements to Tika without > breaking backwards compatibility. We _might_ be able to do that with the > outstanding issues for 2.0 when someone has time. > > > > We could also do the upgrade to jdk 8 with Tika 2.0. > > > > If this sounds reasonable, I propose creating a 1.x branch from trunk > for 1.x maintenance and then reworking trunk to the 2.x structure that Bob > Paulin so elegantly worked out. I figure we can either copy/paste from > trunk to the current 2.x (and _hope_ we get all the updates) or use Bob's > 2.0 as a model for restructuring trunk. At this point, I'd prefer the > second option. The key here is to switch "trunk" to 2.0 so that we all > have the mindset that 2.0 is what we're focused on. > > > > The main benefit of this proposal is that we'd have a more modular > Tika soon. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Best, > > > > Tim > > > > > -- Best regards, Konstantin Gribov
