-1 I think we should wait. I'd like us to have one non-breaking official release on Apache before we start adding changes that will greatly effect end users. Dramatically changing the Api seems like a bad idea since users will have no choice but to update.
Theoretically once we get past the first release, they would occur on a much more regular period. So I don't think it's a big deal to wait until we have a 4.0 release, and keep 3.2.10 as the current packaging. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 12, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Aaron D. Mihalik <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 fix it before the next RC > > We'll inconvenience some users now, but I'd rather fix it now, before the > pool of users grows much larger. > > The issue being that we have a number pull request outstanding, and it > would break those pull requests. So we're somewhat inconveniencing > ourselves. > > We had some discussion before we moved it to Apache, and decided to hold > off until after the move to Apache. > > --Aaron > > >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:09 AM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Convention in other Java-based ASF projects is to have a package of >> "org.apache.<foo>...". I was recently reminded that Rya still is using >> "mvm.rya...". >> >> Has there been any discussion about ultimately doing an s/package >> mvm.rya/package org.apache.rya/ in the future? >> >> I wanted to mention it before we got to another release candidate :). >> Long term, it's probably a good idea, but there's a good argument in >> doing a release of Rya at the ASF which maintains the old package name >> for the sake of your users. >> >> - Josh >>
