Hi, of course, my vote for Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1: +1 (non-binding)
Thanks for all feedback. I'll try to answer some of the comments received so far. On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Aaron Coburn <acob...@amherst.edu> wrote: > > I did have some problems building with JDK9 (OS X), first with the version of > the JaCoCo plugin and then later (after changing to a more recent version of > the plugin) with the japicmp plugin. These would be nice things to fix, but > I don't see any reason that they need to hold up this release, as the > JDK8-built artifacts work just fine when running in JDK9. I guess most of us we have quite some pending tasks regarding upgrade / make compatible our different source bases with JDK9. So I've registered the request as COMMONSRDF-67. On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Bruno P. Kinoshita < brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.invalid> wrote: > > Any plans to use the changes.xml file for next releases? Sound like a good idea to me. Registwered as COMMONSRDF-68 for the next release. > I have an automated script that downloads the KEYS file from https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS, > and it failed. Then re-read the e-mail and found the KEYS here https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/commonsrdf/KEYS: > > Does it matter which KEYS file is used after the component has been graduated? > I'm fine with the KEYS file location being in the vote thread, but just thought it > would be worth checking. As I pointed in a previous thread, although we graduated as a component, most of the team behind the RDF component we are not PMC members. I don't have karma for that, but someone should add our KEYS there. I just though the file we had during incubation was good enough. > Another minor nit pick: Notice file message was not updated to 2017. Do you think that could be blocking? Well, noted as COMMONSRDF-69 for now. Thanks.
