Just so it's clear are we going to: 1) Rename the 2.0 branch over to master
or 2) Re-apply the changes on master. I recall Chris' preference was 1 which would be quicker. However there is very likely missed patches. 2 will be more time consuming but it would be more likely to include all the most recent code. I'm open to either. Not sure how far out of date 2.0 branch is so I defer to Tim on the risk of going with #1. - Bob On 9/11/2017 5:15 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote: > +1000 > > > > On 9/11/17, 12:03 PM, "Allison, Timothy B." <talli...@mitre.org> wrote: > > Y, well, I didn't say _which_ September... > > Given my limited availability to work on this in Sept and POI's decision > to move to Java 1.8, I propose releasing Tika 1.17 after the release of POI > 3.17 and PDFBox 2.0.8. This would be the last version of Tika at the Java > 1.7 level, and then we bump the Java requirement to 1.8, switch master to the > 2.0 layout and create a 1.x maintenance branch (with Java 1.8) for quick > critical bug fixes/security vulnerabilities until we release 2.0. > > What do you all think? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Allison, Timothy B. [mailto:talli...@mitre.org] > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 9:33 AM > To: dev@tika.apache.org > Subject: Tika 2.0? > > All, > > We're getting some increasing deltas btwn the 2.0 and trunk branches. > Many of these are my fault; I gave up making updates to 2.0 around April/May, > I think. > > What would people think of punting on some of the desired goals of 2.0 > (e.g. chaining parsers, more structured but still simple metadata) and > releasing 2.0 soonish...say 2.0-BETA end of September? > > We've been able to make some major improvements to Tika without > breaking backwards compatibility. We _might_ be able to do that with the > outstanding issues for 2.0 when someone has time. > > We could also do the upgrade to jdk 8 with Tika 2.0. > > If this sounds reasonable, I propose creating a 1.x branch from trunk > for 1.x maintenance and then reworking trunk to the 2.x structure that Bob > Paulin so elegantly worked out. I figure we can either copy/paste from trunk > to the current 2.x (and _hope_ we get all the updates) or use Bob's 2.0 as a > model for restructuring trunk. At this point, I'd prefer the second option. > The key here is to switch "trunk" to 2.0 so that we all have the mindset that > 2.0 is what we're focused on. > > The main benefit of this proposal is that we'd have a more modular > Tika soon. > > What do you think? > > Best, > > Tim > > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
