incubator-jena-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paolo Castagna <>
Subject Re: TDB: release process
Date Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:55:13 GMT
Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 09/01/12 07:59, Paolo Castagna wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>> do you have a date in mind for the release?
> As soon as time permits.  I don't know of anything other than
> documentation that needs doing because I did clearing up while the main
> release was being done.
>> I'd like to release LARQ as well, if possible (at the same time).
> Why does LARQ depend on TDB?

Maybe that was a mistake, but it's because of the assembly dataset stuff
and related tests.

>> 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).
> Your decision.

Ok, I'll go for a release without that feature.

People used LARQ already in the bast without any update capability.

If users want to update their dataset via SPARQL Update will need to
be informed that this is a known limitation (i.e. I'll add a comment
on the website/documentation) and they will need to re-index as they
see fit.

Many of datasets/use cases are mostly read-only, therefore this will
not have an impact there (and they can benefit from having LARQ if
they want free-text searches).

>> 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.
> The README has "openjena" and "sourceforge" in it.

Thanks. I'll fix all these.


>> 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.

View raw message