Tom Morris

Generally I like the idea of more modularity and smaller modules. I've started looking at this PR, but don't think I understand it well enough to have an opinion yet....

p.s. I pushed the rebased version to @wetneb 's branch, but I may not have caught all the new things which have been added.

Sorry about that. Since Github records the before and after commit hashes for the force push, I considered it safe and recoverable. I'll keep my rebases private in the future.

>> I would expect the jars to be named something like openrefine-core and openrefine-grel. > Good catch. Did this get addressed?

I'm starting to regret not having a deeper (and more public) conversation about the compatibility of this restructuring. I'm not confident that there are no downstream implications given the repackaging...

I should have been clearer that my comments are specifically in relation to the point release 3.9 where we want to preserve compatibility. I don't disagree with moving towards increased...

Linux distribution packagers, commercial bundle packagers, and docker packagers are a few, plus, of course, all the ones that we don't know about.

As @395ShikharSingh points out, this renders fine on the desktop web, so it's likely a mobile-specific bug.

It's unfortunate that none of this information is available in the public dumps (and the recent changes API is restricted so that you can't access the full history. Note that...

I'm not sure how to interpret this data. Does it say anything about machine_comment records? I didn't think they were included in the editions dump, but only the recent changes...