+1 On 8 Nov 2016 1:56 pm, "Andy Seaborne" <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> Well, 3.1.1 should have been 3.2.0 so lets pretend 3.1.1 is 3.2.0-beta. > :-) So if we have to get out a bug-fixing "3.1.2" or anything even quite > soon, 3.2.0 is still a reasonable choice. > > It is much easier to set the version now. It sets into all sorts of places > like written down in JIRA and email. > > Andy > > On 08/11/16 13:26, Claude Warren wrote: > >> Should we wait for the change that causes the version jump first. I would >> think that we would have 3.1.2-SNAPSHOT and then *if* JENA-1250 causes an >> incompatible change jump the version to 3.2.0-SNAPSHOT >> >> But I can go either way >> >> +0 >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Osma Suominen <osma.suomi...@helsinki.fi >> > >> wrote: >> >> 08.11.2016, 12:33, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>> Should the next version be 3.2.0? >>>> >>>> The Lucene file format may well change. >>>> >>>> If we want that, I'll go and update the POM versions. >>>> >>>> >>> +1 for calling it 3.2.0. >>> >>> Yes, the Lucene upgrade (JENA-1250) will very likely go into the next >>> release in some form and change the Lucene index on-disk format. >>> >>> -Osma >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Osma Suominen >>> D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist >>> National Library of Finland >>> P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4) >>> 00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO >>> Tel. +358 50 3199529 >>> osma.suomi...@helsinki.fi >>> http://www.nationallibrary.fi >>> >>> >> >> >>
