I have attached the diff to the JENA-2213 ticket
Marco
On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:19 PM Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 23/01/2022 23:05, Marco Neumann wrote:
> > Do I have to initiate the merger in jira from #2213 or is this something
> > you do from #1169?
>
> #1169 is a github pull request:
On 23/01/2022 23:05, Marco Neumann wrote:
Do I have to initiate the merger in jira from #2213 or is this something
you do from #1169?
#1169 is a github pull request:
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/1169
If you prefer, upload a file of the diff to the jira ticket JENA-2213 (a
git
Do I have to initiate the merger in jira from #2213 or is this something
you do from #1169?
On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 10:59 PM Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Would the best way to move forward be to merge #1169 (which has to be
> done before 4.4.0) then you can provide PR to update the tests to be
>
Would the best way to move forward be to merge #1169 (which has to be
done before 4.4.0) then you can provide PR to update the tests to be
appropriate for OSGB which can be done at leisure (before or after
4.4.0)? I don't see any non-test changes below.
Andy
On 22/01/2022 19:33, Marco
in addition to the change to the pom.xml to bump SIS up to 1.1
these two files needs to be changed
modified:
jena-geosparql/src/test/java/org/apache/jena/geosparql/implementation/SRSInfoTest.java
Line 102 > Envelope expResult = new Envelope(-118397.00138845091,
751441.7790901454,
On 22/01/2022 17:34, Marco Neumann wrote:
I have not seen this in the pull request yet, but this may work. I have
also made changes to the reference position as it isn't appropriate for
OSGB.
Sound like it would be better than 1169.
but 1169 may work as is.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 5:17
I have not seen this in the pull request yet, but this may work. I have
also made changes to the reference position as it isn't appropriate for
OSGB.
but 1169 may work as is.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 5:17 PM Andy Seaborne wrote:
> How is it different to
>
>
How is it different to
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/1169
? (which is the Diff on the ticket, after cleaning up a bit)
On 22/01/2022 15:58, Marco Neumann wrote:
I have created a fix for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2213
this involves an upgrade to SIS1.1
How are we going
I have created a fix for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2213
this involves an upgrade to SIS1.1
How are we going to include this in Jena 4.4.0? Should I ask for a pull
request?
Marco
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 3:07 PM Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Things are looking on-track for a
Things are looking on-track for a release.
A couple of JIRA have come in recently - one's now got a PR, and the
LiteralLabel looks OK, just needs trying out.
Builds:
Some of the Jenkins is broken (that take 2 mins ... which is a little
too fast!) and despite "success" the snapshot repos is
Looks good to me!
Thanks Andy
Bruno
On Sunday, 16 January 2022, 06:53:40 am NZDT, Andy Seaborne
wrote:
The idea was to have 4.4.0 quite soon because the Fuseki UI work only
just missing 4.3.0
Despite everything, we seem to be still on track for end-ish January!
Resolved tickets
The idea was to have 4.4.0 quite soon because the Fuseki UI work only
just missing 4.3.0
Despite everything, we seem to be still on track for end-ish January!
Resolved tickets for 4.4.0:
https://s.apache.org/jena-4.4.0-jira
Does that fit with PMC members?
Andy
Contributions:
Erich
12 matches
Mail list logo
