I am not advocating that we create bridge methods in the build as is mentioned later in the linke I posted above, just asking about the proper version numbers.
Claude On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Claude Warren <cla...@xenei.com> wrote: > Sorry, I should have included a link before: > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@commons.apache.org: > lte=1M:%5Bcollections%5D%20breaking%20changes > > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Please see the discussions on the JIRA about source code compatibility. >> >> JENA-1389 >> https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/362 >> >> JENA-1495 >> https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/368 >> >> Where is that other discussion? A link would be helpful. >> >> Andy >> >> >> On 02/04/18 10:03, Claude Warren wrote: >> >>> Should this not be released as a 4.0 version as I think we operate under >>> semantic versioning and the API is not backwards compatible? >>> >>> There was a similar discussion over in Commons recently where several of >>> the functions there were changed to return "this" rather than "void". >>> Like >>> our changes here. The decision there was to revert those changes for the >>> current release and place the "this" returning versions in the upcoming >>> version number changing release. >>> >>> as noted in the Commons discussion: >>> >>> The return type is part of the method signature that Java uses to find >>> >>>> resolve references. >>>> >>>> Even changing from void to non-void will cause binary incompatibility. >>>> (Source-wise, that's fine) >>>> >>>> >>> I am not certain that I should vote -1 on this issue but I would like the >>> discussion held and consensus reached before the release goes ahead. >>> >>> Claude >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM, ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Please vote to approve this release: >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release >>>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> [ ] 0 Don't care >>>>> [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... >>>>> >>>> >>>> + does everything work on OS X? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> + are the GPG signatures fine? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> + is there a source archive? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> + can the source archive really be built? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> ajs6f >>>> >>>> On Mar 29, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Here is a vote on a release of Jena 3.7.0. >>>>> >>>>> This is the first proposed candidate for a 3.7.0 release. >>>>> >>>>> There are process changes. >>>>> >>>>> Deadline: >>>>> >>>>> 2018-04-01 22:00 UTC >>>>> >>>>> April 1st! >>>>> >>>>> ==== Process Changes >>>>> >>>>> 1/ >>>>> MD5 files are being discouraged because MD5 is not secure. Projects >>>>> are >>>>> >>>> now asked to not publish md5. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are no md5 files in the proposed dist/jena area - files on Apache >>>>> >>>> hardware. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are sha1 and sha512 checksums. >>>>> * The sha512 is in Linux sha512sum checkable format. >>>>> * The sha1 is whatever maven generated and is the same as will go to >>>>> >>>> maven central. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Having the sha1 ties the dist/jena artifacts to maven central (as does >>>>> >>>> the .asc). >>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are md5 and sha1 in the proposes maven repo staging area for >>>>> >>>> sending to maven central. That part of maven is hardwired to md5/sha1 >>>> still. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> There's a script to setup the sha512. >>>>> >>>>> 2/ >>>>> To establish the proof chain for signed artifacts in /dist/project/, I >>>>> >>>> have been asked to try out the new META files. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://checker.apache.org/doc/README.html#ch-meta >>>>> >>>>> There are two files >>>>> >>>>> /dist/jena/META >>>>> /dist/jena/META.asc >>>>> >>>>> META says who signs what, and is itself signed by the PMC chair. >>>>> >>>>> ==== Release changes >>>>> >>>>> 55 JIRA: >>>>> https://s.apache.org/jena-3.7.0-jira >>>>> >>>>> == Significant Changes >>>>> >>>>> ** Java9: Building and running on a Java9 platform is supported >>>>> >>>>> JENA-1461 - Allow ARQ custom functions to be written in JavaScript >>>>> >>>>> JENA-1389 - Return `this` rather than `void` from Dataset (API change) >>>>> JENA-1495 - Return Model from PrefixMapping methods (API change) >>>>> >>>>> JENA-1458, JENA-1483 - Transaction Promotion >>>>> >>>>> JENA-1453 - Lucene indexes using a graph field are smaller >>>>> >>>>> JENA-1490 - Working with Blank Nodes with Fuseki >>>>> >>>>> == Upgrades to libraries (runtime dependencies): >>>>> >>>>> No dependency changes. >>>>> >>>>> ==== Release Vote >>>>> >>>>> Everyone, not just committers, is invited to test and vote. >>>>> Please download and test the proposed release. >>>>> >>>>> Proposed dist/ area: >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jena/ >>>>> >>>>> Keys: >>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jena/dist/KEYS >>>>> >>>>> Staging repository: >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache >>>>> jena-1022/ >>>>> >>>>> Git commit (browser URL): >>>>> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=jena.git;a=commi >>>>> t;h=d4e7063e >>>>> >>>>> Git Commit Hash: >>>>> d4e7063e7a6db8ce77699bd0388e1a1bd6816626 >>>>> >>>>> Git Commit Tag: >>>>> jena-3.7.0-rc1 >>>>> >>>>> Please vote to approve this release: >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release >>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care >>>>> [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... >>>>> >>>>> This vote will be open until at least >>>>> >>>>> 2018-04-01 22:00 UTC >>>>> >>>>> If you expect to check the release but the time limit does not work >>>>> for you, please email within the schedule above with an expected time >>>>> and we can extend the vote period. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> Checking needed: >>>>> >>>>> + does everything work on Linux? >>>>> + does everything work on MS Windows? >>>>> + does everything work on OS X? >>>>> + are the GPG signatures fine? >>>>> + are the checksums correct? >>>>> + is there a source archive? >>>>> >>>>> + can the source archive really be built? >>>>> (NB This requires a "mvn install" first time) >>>>> + is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact >>>>> (both source and binary artifacts)? >>>>> + does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions? >>>>> + have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades? >>>>> if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately? >>>>> + does the tag/commit in the SCM contain reproducible sources? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > > -- > I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web > <http://like-like.xenei.com> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren > -- I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web <http://like-like.xenei.com> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
