Decide on version number for initial release about rdf4j

[ansell]

I would suggest going with 1.0 or 5.0 due to the package renames. I slightly prefer 1.0, as the Sesame-4 transition to RDF4J-1.0 will just be package names, but it is clear that they are not drop in substitutes.

[ansell]

Would a compatibility package be useful if it could be created efficiently? Ie, a set of Sesame classes/interfaces that all override RDF4J classes/interfaces with the old package names, and simply deprecate themselves with constructors alone?

[abrokenjester]

On 12/02/16 12:56, Peter Ansell wrote:

Would a compatibility package be useful if it could be created efficiently? Ie,
a set of Sesame classes/interfaces that all override RDF4J classes/interfaces
with the old package names, and simply deprecate themselves with constructors alone?

That would be a quite useful, but I'm not sure how to go about creating this.
You know of any tools we can use to generate such a package?

I can imagine it being doable by some clever scripting, but it sounds like quite
a lot of work to get this done.

An alternative is that we offer a conversion script of some sort, that inspects
user code and quickly replaces old package names with new ones. This is fairly
trivial to do.

[ansell]

In the distant past I remember doing it with the Eclipse IDE, but I can't seem to replicate that functionality with Eclipse Mars. The move/copy functions don't seem to do it and I am not sure what other tools I would have used.

A script may be useful and preferable, but compatibility packages would smooth over the transition period so that it wasn't a single switchover date/version for everyone.

[abrokenjester]

I've created a new issue #14 for discussing transitional packages further.

[abrokenjester]

My own preference is currently to go with option 3, as well, and use 1.0 (let's drop the patch version number if it is zero) as our first version.

As an aside: while IP review is ongoing (we only have preliminary approval at this stage) we can not do final releases. However, we can do milestone releases, so our first release will be 1.0M1.

[abrokenjester]

Reopening as I still need to update the poms accordingly.

[abrokenjester]

Version now set to 1.0M1-SNAPSHOT

[abrokenjester]

We are looking into doing a parallel release for the 2.9 branch (see #38 ), which means we need to revisit this.

If we go this route, presumably Sesame 2.9 should become rdf4j 1.0, while Sesame 4 becomes rdf4j 2.0?