On 29/02/12 14:01, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 29 February 2012 13:51, Benson Margulies<[email protected]> wrote:
One person on general@ has got this idea in his head about renaming,
and a board member and a host of others have told him, 'no'. So
there's no cause for concern.
+1 (although Greg is not speaking as a board member - he simply said a
change of policy would require a board resolution, if one were
submitted then he would speak as a board member after discussing with
the whole board)
Jena is OK, it's a storm in a teacup. Your mentors will intervene if
necessary (as Benson just did here). For now monitoring the thread and
providing appropriate support to the "correct" course of action is all
you need to do right now.
I hope so - currently we have a small minority of code under
org.apache.jena. (err - LARQ and Fuseki IIRC)
Some is easy to convert completely, with a little user pain (SDB?), some
is a major task.
Andy
Ross
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Andy Seaborne<[email protected]> wrote:
On 29/02/12 13:13, Ian Dickinson wrote:
On 29/02/12 12:05, Andy Seaborne wrote:
A discussion on general@i
It will resolve whether we have to repackage Jena to graduate.
It's not just the repackaging. Some of the more astringent commenters
are "shocked" that even having compatibility packages and classes (i.e
not under org.apachSame length:
org.apache.jena
com.hp.hpl.jena
No btes saved.
e) in a TLP has ever been allowed. So depending on
how the vote goes, we could be forced to remove all mention of com.hp.*
from the code base, and host the compatibility layer packages somewhere
else.
The problem that gives us is that all the references out there to Jena -
code samples, presentations, articles, papers, tutorials and even books
will be instantly out of date. The discussion on general@ has the tenor
of "well, it's Cloudera's problem so let them sort it out" but that's
not true for Jena. It's not HP's problem!
Absolutely agree. And to your general@i email.
It's a major cost to users, and I don't see that it is to anyone's benefit
to force the extreme case of no non-apache packages.
It's hard to determine but I don't see any evidence that some set of
potential users is put off using Jena by the package name. We do known that
leaving HP made a difference.
If we have to re-name packages to graduate, so be it that's not really a
big deal**. If we have to completely expunge all mention of com.hp.*,
that would be at the very least disappointing.
And then there are vocabularies :-|
Ian
** Well, it'll take some work to get the site docs and Javadoc in line
with the packages.
The other thing about this whole discussion is that it is loaded.
If incubator expects a project to rename, it's still not promising it will
graduate. So a podling comes in, does the change, gets mauled, the user
community messed about. Can the podling take the namespace with it if it is
retired?
Andy
