Vote passes with 5 +1 and 1 +0 votes. I'll begin the release process. Thank you all for your help, checks, and discussion.
Greg On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 2:12 PM Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Andi, > > Y, to be clear, I really like what you’ve done and it is all a bunch > cleaner than my earlier stuff; I wasn’t at all questioning the design. The > question was more to back compat. There was quite a bit of red when I made > the upgrade and before I modernized our code on Tika. > > As long as we’re all on board, off we go! > > As to my two recent commits, please let me know if there are better options > for 4.1.1. > > Thank you! > > Cheers, > > Tim > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:55 PM Andreas Beeker <kiwiwi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi Tim, > > > > I've made that changes on purpose, as I wanted to make the EMF API > similar > > to the WMF one. > > > > > oap.hemf.extractor.HemfExtractor -> oap.hemf.usermodel.HemfPicture > > All (?) our user models are called by their content and being similar to > > WMF, I had to rename the class. > > > > > HwmfRecord.getRecordType() -> getWmfRecordType() > > The EMF records extends the WMF records, so this makes it more clear what > > kind of record type to ask for. > > > > > oap.hemf.record.AbstractHemfComment -> oap.hemf.record.hemf.Comment > > > oap.hemf.record.HemfRecord -> oap.h.r.emf.HemfRecord > > > > > As both sets (emf and emfplus) contain quite a few records, I've decided > > to split their packages. > > > > I'm now looking at the other (not yet resolved) issues you opened. > > > > Andi > > > > > > >
