On 09/01/12 07:59, Paolo Castagna wrote:
Hi Andy,
do you have a date in mind for the release?
As soon as time permits. I don't know of anything other than
documentation that needs doing because I did clearing up while the main
release was being done.
I'd like to release LARQ as well, if possible (at the same time).
Why does LARQ depend on TDB?
There is an open bug/new feature for LARQ:
- JENA-164: LARQ needs to update the Lucene index when a
SPARQL Update request is received
If you agree, I'd like to release LARQ anyway (since JENA-164 isn't
a trivial fix/task and it's a new feature, not a bug).
Your decision.
I also need to spend a couple of hours to double check the NOTICE.txt
file and make sure it is correct and following criteria used in the
other modules.
The README has "openjena" and "sourceforge" in it.
I'll have a double check on the pom.xml and see if it doing something
different from the other modoules with the aim at reducing diversity
between modules (=> lower cost for the release manager).
Other than this, I do not see other tasks pending for LARQ.
Paolo
Andy Seaborne wrote:
The release of core/ARQ etc. hasn't lead to any immediate disasters (but
there is still time!) so we can move on to TDB.
As far as I'm concerned, the code in the current snapshot and in SVN is
release candidate code (JENA-102 is fixed) and if people don't test it
(I've pinged jena-users@), then they risk it taking longer to get a
released version with fixes.
I need to write the transaction API documentation and there is something
odd in the prefix handling but as far as I can see, it's been odd for
some time, maybe all time; it needs reworking, not fixing so shouldn't
block a release.
Andy
PS Fuseki snapshot is using TDB transactions now.
