Mailing-List: contact jena-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jena-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lsimons@jicarilla.nl designates
 10.112.38.135 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.112.38.135;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F4E1482.4060000@apache.org>
References: 
 <CAOvkMoY8=PtxnXj-1O8YivLHpp47sVFTnvwVbNXhrCQbSJADWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F4E1482.4060000@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 01:36:57 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAJjdaOH6oQif7_sNuLqG1EomZPFMXYN+OedNmUm8oDZVeomo9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility
From: Leo Simons <mail@leosimons.com>
To: jena-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hey folks,

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> A discussion on general@i
>
> It will resolve whether we have to repackage Jena to graduate.

Looks like the e-mail threads are maybe fragmented across lists or
something I can't get a clear picture. Or maybe I'm just tired.

Apologies if others said this already, but, just to be clear...

You don't have to repackage jena to graduate. That was never the case
and it's not going to be the case. I'll bite heads off if someone
tries to roll in some draconian policy. If for some crazy reason some
committee decides the policy is to change, we'll get a policy
exception.

We discussed this issue at some length as a community and considered
all the aspects of it diligently. Now there are some reasonable plans
and ideas for how to handle it. Resolved. Done. Go make nice things :)

cheers,

Leo

(as an aside, hadoop and related projects are in a bit of a different
situation with potentially conflicting interests from loads of
commercial parties and that can create tons of pressure; apache needs
to guard against making a mess there...so it's conceivable the
decision for sqoop ought to be different to jena, I dunno the
details...)