Tim, +1 You've done an admirable job of dual maintenance but it sounds like it became a heavy tax on development. Releasing would allow us to get back to "trunk" based development again. Then we could focus on porting any missed patches and start looking for any regressions. I also like the idea of picking up Java 8 as many other projects are starting to do this.
- Bob On 8/28/2017 8:32 AM, Allison, Timothy B. wrote: > All, > > We're getting some increasing deltas btwn the 2.0 and trunk branches. Many > of these are my fault; I gave up making updates to 2.0 around April/May, I > think. > > What would people think of punting on some of the desired goals of 2.0 > (e.g. chaining parsers, more structured but still simple metadata) and > releasing 2.0 soonish...say 2.0-BETA end of September? > > We've been able to make some major improvements to Tika without breaking > backwards compatibility. We _might_ be able to do that with the outstanding > issues for 2.0 when someone has time. > > We could also do the upgrade to jdk 8 with Tika 2.0. > > If this sounds reasonable, I propose creating a 1.x branch from trunk for > 1.x maintenance and then reworking trunk to the 2.x structure that Bob Paulin > so elegantly worked out. I figure we can either copy/paste from trunk to the > current 2.x (and _hope_ we get all the updates) or use Bob's 2.0 as a model > for restructuring trunk. At this point, I'd prefer the second option. The > key here is to switch "trunk" to 2.0 so that we all have the mindset that 2.0 > is what we're focused on. > > The main benefit of this proposal is that we'd have a more modular Tika > soon. > > What do you think? > > Best, > > Tim >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
