All,
In looking at my schedule and thinking about the project more broadly,
I'm worried that moving pipes to its own module in Tika 3.x after we've had
two beta releases might be a large step. What would you think about this
timeline:
Oct 2024 -- Release 3.0.0 (after regression tests and fixes and with
warnings about upcoming changes in tika-pipes in 4.x)
Oct 2024 -- move main branch to 4.x (and Java 17) and move tika-pipes to
its own module or create a standalone tika-pipes project
??? -- start 4.0.0-BETA releases ASAP
April 2025 (6 months from Oct 2024) -- end support for 2.x (and thereby
Java 8)
April 2025 (6 months from Oct 2024 or earlier???) -- release 4.0.0
Oct 2025 -- end support for 3.x (and thereby Java 11)
I realize that even dependency maintenance on three concurrent branches
will be burdensome. Perhaps we fallback to "update dependencies before a
release and before the regression tests" at least on the 2.x and 3.x
branches?
What do you all think? Many thanks!
Best,
Tim
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:39 AM Nicholas DiPiazza <
nicholas.dipia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am going to do my best to remove pipes from Tika tonight and put all the
> code in the new repo. I have all night set aside for it.
>
> Conference call yes I can make that work if you want to communicate that
> way.
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024, 8:56 AM Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Nicholas and fellow devs,
>> I'm happy to set up a telecon if you'd like to discuss. I'm sorry that
>> I can't do the significant refactoring of tika-pipes in as timely manner as
>> I had hoped. :/
>> I think getting 3.x out and then turning to this in 4.x makes sense, but
>> I definitely welcome discussion and progress however we can make it.
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 2:20 PM Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> For 3.x, I think it might be. For 4.x, I think we should aim in that
>>> direction. What do others think?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 12:33 PM Nicholas DiPiazza <
>>> nicholas.dipia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I feel like what I might want to do is remove pipes from Tika completely
>>>> and create a second repository I've already done a lot of the work in my
>>>> local workspace but I have a bunch more to go
>>>>
>>>> Does that sound like crazy talk?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 10:02 AM Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > @Nicholas DiPiazza <ndipia...@apache.org>
>>>> > I don't think I'll have time to refactor tika-pipes out of tika-core
>>>> before
>>>> > the 3.x release. Is there an MVP we can do to get grpc working so
>>>> that we
>>>> > can release 3.x?
>>>> >
>>>> > All,
>>>> > Any blockers beyond the regression tests (and grpc)?
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> >
>>>> > Tim
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 9:30 AM Gary D. Gregory <ggreg...@apache.org>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Hi All,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Is there a time frame for 3.0.0? It looks like Apache CXF 4.1.0
>>>> depends
>>>> > on
>>>> > > 3.0.0 [1] and I'm waiting on CXF 4.1.0... Any guidance would be
>>>> > > appreciated.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > TY!
>>>> > > Gary
>>>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-8671
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On 2024/08/21 17:08:22 Nicholas DiPiazza wrote:
>>>> > > > I have a pull request for some class path loading fixes for Tika
>>>> grpc.
>>>> > > > Hoping to get that done today but it's a struggle so far
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024, 11:30 AM Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > All,
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > There are a couple of items documented on
>>>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-4280 that we wanted
>>>> to
>>>> > take
>>>> > > > > care
>>>> > > > > of before the 3.0.0 release.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I can run a comparison btwn 2.x and 3.x on our regression
>>>> corpus,
>>>> > > and I
>>>> > > > > can try to deal with javadocs.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Any recs on how to wrap up the other issues? Are there any
>>>> other
>>>> > > blockers
>>>> > > > > not listed on that issue?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Thank you!
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Best,
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Tim
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
