Hi Andy, do you have a date in mind for the release? I'd like to release LARQ as well, if possible (at the same time).
There is an open bug/new feature for LARQ: - JENA-164: LARQ needs to update the Lucene index when a SPARQL Update request is received If you agree, I'd like to release LARQ anyway (since JENA-164 isn't a trivial fix/task and it's a new feature, not a bug). I also need to spend a couple of hours to double check the NOTICE.txt file and make sure it is correct and following criteria used in the other modules. I'll have a double check on the pom.xml and see if it doing something different from the other modoules with the aim at reducing diversity between modules (=> lower cost for the release manager). Other than this, I do not see other tasks pending for LARQ. Paolo Andy Seaborne wrote: > The release of core/ARQ etc. hasn't lead to any immediate disasters (but > there is still time!) so we can move on to TDB. > > As far as I'm concerned, the code in the current snapshot and in SVN is > release candidate code (JENA-102 is fixed) and if people don't test it > (I've pinged jena-users@), then they risk it taking longer to get a > released version with fixes. > > I need to write the transaction API documentation and there is something > odd in the prefix handling but as far as I can see, it's been odd for > some time, maybe all time; it needs reworking, not fixing so shouldn't > block a release. > > Andy > > PS Fuseki snapshot is using TDB transactions now.
