A discussion on general@i
It will resolve whether we have to repackage Jena to graduate.
This follows from the sqoop graduation thread and that was only over
some additional compatibility code.
This is JENA-192.
It's not so bad if we do - the actual doing is pretty trivial.
It's the living with the consequences that will be a cost to us and the
wider community. My impression is that turn over of versions is quite
slow (getting slower?); and adapter-writers are going to be seriously
inconvenienced.
I did a renaming on core/ARQ/TDB last night to check it out - Eclipse +
a perl script works on disconnected projects. Eclipse messed up one
thing (occurrences of two class of the same name - one inside a
same-package class [intended], one in the package as a top level class)
which I simply fixed up.
When it comes to detail, the incubator guides are a little thin. Expect
more issues to arise.
((
This is going to matter to Incubator more if some of the proposals for
scaling the incubator by pushing more from IPMC to the PPMC come to pass
. It's not clear, to me at least, that IPMC is sufficiently in agreement
to do that delegation yet; if it's not, things will go wrong at some
point in the future when sub-community-A bumps into sub-community-B.
))
Andy
On 29/02/12 10:02, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
I don't see that this getting to any clear end yet. So I suggest that
we take this from a Sqoop instance to be a discussion on rules them
selves.
I would like to start a [VOTE] about whether it is a *must* for
podlings to rename all packages before being a TLP or not over
keeping the old package names for backward compatibility. What ever
the consensus going to be built we definitely need to update the
Incubator documents to clear this kind of issue. But before starting
the vote I would like to consider others' opinions.
Thoughts ?
