Hi everyone, Did we get consensus on this? I think it is important to maintain a 3.x branch since existing users would require time to upgrade and it may not be possible for all users to upgrade to rdf4j. I agree maintaining separate version lines will add more overhead to the project, but I feel it is necessary since some contributors may not be able to use 4.0+ branches due to rdf4j. If I don't hear any naysayers, I will pull in the pom updates Kevin suggested and create a 3.x branch for future development for legacy users.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Jürgen Jakobitsch < [email protected]> wrote: > hi, > > my 2 cents: > > since this might look a little easier than it is in reality i'd give my +1 > to a feature branch (4.0.0). > => rather take a little more time and upgrade more deps and test > thoroughly.. note that you might scare > away NEW installations with old dependencies.. (when i first installed i'd > thought i'd rather upgrade deps myself than installing a five year old > HDFS) > > notes: > > 1. for us at semantic-web.com it would be really important to have the > latest rdf4j version > (note: we're upgrading to 2.3. due to some critical rdf4j 2.2* bug in > our product) > 2. there won't be any backwards compatibility with respect to the > requirement of having to install accumulo/hdfs, mongo anew.. > (note: we were testing our installation with accumulo 1.8.1 + hadoop > 2.9.5 on DC/OS and with a relatively new version of mongo on premise). > (note: later accumulo versions depend on a newer libthrift version, > which requires a knowledgeable person to take a look) > > kr jürgen > > [1] https://semver.org/ > > *Jürgen Jakobitsch* > Innovation Director > Semantic Web Company GmbH > EU: +43-14021235 <+43%201%204021235> > US: (415) 800-3776 > Mobile: +43-676-6212710 <+43%20676%206212710> > https://www.poolparty.biz > https://www.semantic-web.com > > *Download now > <https://www.poolparty.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/IDC_ > Paper_How_Semantic_Technologies_Steer_Cognitive_Applications.pdf> > **IDC > White Paper* > *Get certified! <https://www.poolparty.biz/academy/> **PoolParty Academy* > > > *PoolParty selected as a KMWorld Trend-Setting Product for 2017* > > > PERSONAL INFORMATION > | web : http://www.turnguard.com > | foaf : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard > | g+ : https://plus.google.com/111233759991616358206/posts > | skype : jakobitsch-punkt > | xmlns:tg = "http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard#"; > | blockchain : https://onename.com/turnguard > > 2018-04-09 19:55 GMT+02:00 Jeff Dasch <[email protected]>: > > > The simplest thing for the community is to have a single branch of > > development that is being supported/maintained. Otherwise we're always > > forward/backporting new features that apply to both versions which is a > > pain. I do think we should push a 3.x branch so we can always do a > future > > 3.2.13 release if requested by the community. Then someone should bump > > master to 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT, and then we should pull in PR 245. > > > > There have been a couple commits on master since the 3.2.12 release. Do > we > > want to cut a 3.2.13 release with just those remaining commits, or should > > they all get rolled into the 4.0.0 release? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Chilton, Kevin < > [email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hey Rya devs, > > > > > > I'd like to get PR #245 (RYA-405) pulled in. This is a pretty big > > > dependency change, and should probably involve a major version > increment > > to > > > 4.0.0. Could we get a discussion going on the devlist about if we want > > to > > > support a 3.x branch and a 4.x branch going forward, or just update > > master > > > to 4.x. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kevin > > > > > > NOTICE: This email message and all attachments transmitted with it may > > > contain privileged and confidential information, and information that > is > > > protected by, and proprietary to, Parsons Corporation, and is intended > > > solely for the use of the addressee for the specific purpose set forth > in > > > this communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended > > > recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, > > > distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments > is > > > strictly prohibited, and you should delete this message and all copies > > and > > > backups thereof. The recipient may not further distribute or use any of > > the > > > information contained herein without the express written authorization > of > > > the sender. If you have received this message in error, or if you have > > any > > > questions regarding the use of the proprietary information contained > > > therein, please contact the sender of this message immediately, and the > > > sender will provide you with further instructions. > > > > > >
