On 9 January 2012 11:26, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 08/01/12 13:23, Leo Simons wrote:
>>
...
> While (maybe) not strictly necessary ("recommended, not mandatory") we have
> discussed repackaging to org.apache.jena, it seems very good practice to do
> so - and less confusing in the long term. I haven't heard any objections to
> doing so.
>
> It's a discontinuity bump for users - so this makes it "Jena3" to me.
If I recall correctly that was the plan the team favoured when
discussing coming into the ASF in the first place.
> I wouldn't want to be too ambitious for Jena3 or it will never happen but
> adding in other significant discontinuities at this point would be good.
> There are lots of internal changes I can think of, but they aren't large
> external changes dependent on a major version number change.
Can I suggest starting a JIRA issue for Jena3 and creating (or moving)
issues as subtasks under that. This will allow the team to look at how
realistic this is and thus decide whether it should be done before
graduation or not.
As Andy pointed out the change in package names is preferred but it is
not mandatory. Some people argue that being in the incubator can
hinder community development (i.e. people don't invest in it because
it is not a TLP). If a move to Jena3 is just a matter of months away
then I huess it would be OK, but if longer maybe you want to consider
delaying it to after graduation.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
