Re: 4.x branch for RDF4j updates.

2018-04-17 Thread Puja Valiyil
I think it would be up the developer to do the effort to pull it in either
3.x or 4.x.  Pull requests could be made against either, but we wouldn't be
able to backport to 3.x much due to the significant API changes.  Similarly
it would require effort to pull from 3.x forward, so I'm not sure that we
would want that to be automatic or on the committer to do.  Since we are
also upgrading dependencies in 4.x, we might introduce more bugs than its
worth on 3.x.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Jeff Dasch  wrote:

> I just wanted to clarify what is meant by support.  I see a couple
> different ways this could be done.  I'm pretty sure we're all talking about
> Process 1 below, but wanted to get a discussion going on what we're
> proposing.  If we're considering Process 2 or 3, I think we need to be more
> explicit about the circumstances where pull requests will be backported.
>
> So for the scenario of a PR of some feature/bugfix/improvement into master
> (aka 4.x):
>
> Process 1)
> - It is only pulled into Master.  A separate PR can be made for the 3.x
> branch if desired, but likely won't.
>
> Process 2)
> - It is pulled into Master and also backported into branch 3.x if trivial
> (easy, no conflicts, or minimal re-write effort).
>
> Process 3)
> - It is pulled into Master and also backported into branch 3.x provided it
> is applicable and below some maximum effort threshold.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Adina Crainiceanu 
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with supporting two branches of development for now: 3.x and 4.x.
> >
> > In the 4.x branch we should update all dependencies, as Jurgen
> suggested. I
> > think it is OK to update the master to be the 4.x development line.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adina
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Brown, Jennifer <
> > jennifer.br...@parsons.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that it is time to upgrade to the latest version of RDF4J and
> > that
> > > this should involve a major version increment.
> > >
> > > To provide time for Rya users to upgrade, I think that we should
> support
> > a
> > > 3.x branch and a 4.x branch for the near future (minimally the end of
> the
> > > calendar year) and then reevaluate continuing to maintain 3.x.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Jen
> > >
> > > Jennifer Brown
> > > Project Manager, Semantic Technologies
> > > PARSONS
> > > 1911 N. Fort Myer Dr. Ste 800
> > > Arlington, VA 22209
> > > Phone: (703) 797-3136
> > > Fax: (703) 522-6310
> > > jennifer.br...@parsons.com
> > > www.parsons.com
> > >
> > > On Apr 9, 2018, at 12:30 PM, Chilton, Kevin  <
> > > mailto: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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Adina Crainiceanu
> > Associate Professor
> > Computer Science Department
> > United States Naval Academy
> > 410-293-6822
> > ad...@usna.edu
> > http://www.usna.edu/Users/cs/adina/
> >
>


Re: 4.x branch for RDF4j updates.

2018-04-17 Thread Jeff Dasch
I just wanted to clarify what is meant by support.  I see a couple
different ways this could be done.  I'm pretty sure we're all talking about
Process 1 below, but wanted to get a discussion going on what we're
proposing.  If we're considering Process 2 or 3, I think we need to be more
explicit about the circumstances where pull requests will be backported.

So for the scenario of a PR of some feature/bugfix/improvement into master
(aka 4.x):

Process 1)
- It is only pulled into Master.  A separate PR can be made for the 3.x
branch if desired, but likely won't.

Process 2)
- It is pulled into Master and also backported into branch 3.x if trivial
(easy, no conflicts, or minimal re-write effort).

Process 3)
- It is pulled into Master and also backported into branch 3.x provided it
is applicable and below some maximum effort threshold.







On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Adina Crainiceanu  wrote:

> I agree with supporting two branches of development for now: 3.x and 4.x.
>
> In the 4.x branch we should update all dependencies, as Jurgen suggested. I
> think it is OK to update the master to be the 4.x development line.
>
> Thanks,
> Adina
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Brown, Jennifer <
> jennifer.br...@parsons.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree that it is time to upgrade to the latest version of RDF4J and
> that
> > this should involve a major version increment.
> >
> > To provide time for Rya users to upgrade, I think that we should support
> a
> > 3.x branch and a 4.x branch for the near future (minimally the end of the
> > calendar year) and then reevaluate continuing to maintain 3.x.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Jen
> >
> > Jennifer Brown
> > Project Manager, Semantic Technologies
> > PARSONS
> > 1911 N. Fort Myer Dr. Ste 800
> > Arlington, VA 22209
> > Phone: (703) 797-3136
> > Fax: (703) 522-6310
> > jennifer.br...@parsons.com
> > www.parsons.com
> >
> > On Apr 9, 2018, at 12:30 PM, Chilton, Kevin  > mailto: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.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dr. Adina Crainiceanu
> Associate Professor
> Computer Science Department
> United States Naval Academy
> 410-293-6822
> ad...@usna.edu
> http://www.usna.edu/Users/cs/adina/
>


Re: 4.x branch for RDF4j updates.

2018-04-17 Thread Adina Crainiceanu
I agree with supporting two branches of development for now: 3.x and 4.x.

In the 4.x branch we should update all dependencies, as Jurgen suggested. I
think it is OK to update the master to be the 4.x development line.

Thanks,
Adina

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Brown, Jennifer <
jennifer.br...@parsons.com> wrote:

> I agree that it is time to upgrade to the latest version of RDF4J and that
> this should involve a major version increment.
>
> To provide time for Rya users to upgrade, I think that we should support a
> 3.x branch and a 4.x branch for the near future (minimally the end of the
> calendar year) and then reevaluate continuing to maintain 3.x.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jen
>
> Jennifer Brown
> Project Manager, Semantic Technologies
> PARSONS
> 1911 N. Fort Myer Dr. Ste 800
> Arlington, VA 22209
> Phone: (703) 797-3136
> Fax: (703) 522-6310
> jennifer.br...@parsons.com
> www.parsons.com
>
> On Apr 9, 2018, at 12:30 PM, Chilton, Kevin  mailto: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.
>
>


-- 
Dr. Adina Crainiceanu
Associate Professor
Computer Science Department
United States Naval Academy
410-293-6822
ad...@usna.edu
http://www.usna.edu/Users/cs/adina/


Re: 4.x branch for RDF4j updates.

2018-04-09 Thread Jürgen Jakobitsch
hi,

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)

notes:

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>
https://www.poolparty.biz
https://www.semantic-web.com

*Download now

**IDC
White Paper*
*Get certified!  **PoolParty Academy*


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


PERSONAL INFORMATION
| 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 :

> 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  >
> 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.
> >
>


Re: 4.x branch for RDF4j updates.

2018-04-09 Thread Jeff Dasch
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 
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.
>