You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> on 2017/02/01 10:45:34 UTC
Re: [VOTE] uima-sdk 3.0.0-alpha rc4
> On 30.01.2017, at 15:39, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/30/2017 8:24 AM, Joern Kottmann wrote:
>> +1 to release this alpha version. This will help us to gather feedback from
>> our community.
>>
>> The minor issues pointed out here can be fixed with the next alpha
>> version(s). And we should try to release updates to the alpha version
>> frequently. (also when its a low number of jiras fixed).
> good idea. Do you mean things like 3.0.0-alpha1, 3.0.0-alpha2, etc. ? or do you
> have a better naming convention in mind?
Applause for the first v3 alpha release! I hope being able to play with it
in the not so far away future... unfortunately, the start of this year is
unusually busy for me.
I think "3.0.0-alpha-1", "3.0.0-alpha-2" are pretty good until we eventually
switch to 3.0.0-beta-1" and finally to "3.0.0" ;)
Cheers,
-- Richard
Re: [VOTE] uima-sdk 3.0.0-alpha rc4
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
+1 good idea. I'll post a Jira...
-M
On 2/3/2017 9:01 AM, Peter Klgl wrote:
> +1 Good idea.
>
> Peter
>
>
> Am 03.02.2017 um 14:58 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>> We'd need to have a separate update site for alphas/milestones/etc.
>>
>> -- Richard
>
Re: [VOTE] uima-sdk 3.0.0-alpha rc4
Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.
+1 Good idea.
Peter
Am 03.02.2017 um 14:58 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>
> We'd need to have a separate update site for alphas/milestones/etc.
>
> -- Richard
Re: [VOTE] uima-sdk 3.0.0-alpha rc4
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
On 02.02.2017, at 15:50, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, there's a check box that says to show all available versions.
>
> I googled to see if could be "set" by the update site somehow, found out that
> Eclipse help says it's checked by default; so I don't think this can be fixed.
> I posted a note about this to uima-user.
We'd need to have a separate update site for alphas/milestones/etc.
-- Richard
Re: [VOTE] uima-sdk 3.0.0-alpha rc4
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Yes, there's a check box that says to show all available versions.
I googled to see if could be "set" by the update site somehow, found out that
Eclipse help says it's checked by default; so I don't think this can be fixed.
I posted a note about this to uima-user.
-M
On 2/1/2017 5:53 AM, Peter Klgl wrote:
> When installing the features in Eclipse with the initial set checkboxes,
> only the 3.0.0.alpha release is visible. Could happen that someone not
> checking the versions installs the alpha release by accident.
>
>
> Just wanted to mention it. This is a bit suboptimal but I also do not
> know any improvement.
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> Am 01.02.2017 um 11:45 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>>> On 30.01.2017, at 15:39, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/30/2017 8:24 AM, Joern Kottmann wrote:
>>>> +1 to release this alpha version. This will help us to gather feedback from
>>>> our community.
>>>>
>>>> The minor issues pointed out here can be fixed with the next alpha
>>>> version(s). And we should try to release updates to the alpha version
>>>> frequently. (also when its a low number of jiras fixed).
>>> good idea. Do you mean things like 3.0.0-alpha1, 3.0.0-alpha2, etc. ? or do you
>>> have a better naming convention in mind?
>> Applause for the first v3 alpha release! I hope being able to play with it
>> in the not so far away future... unfortunately, the start of this year is
>> unusually busy for me.
>>
>> I think "3.0.0-alpha-1", "3.0.0-alpha-2" are pretty good until we eventually
>> switch to 3.0.0-beta-1" and finally to "3.0.0" ;)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Richard
>
Re: [VOTE] uima-sdk 3.0.0-alpha rc4
Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.
When installing the features in Eclipse with the initial set checkboxes,
only the 3.0.0.alpha release is visible. Could happen that someone not
checking the versions installs the alpha release by accident.
Just wanted to mention it. This is a bit suboptimal but I also do not
know any improvement.
Peter
Am 01.02.2017 um 11:45 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>> On 30.01.2017, at 15:39, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/30/2017 8:24 AM, Joern Kottmann wrote:
>>> +1 to release this alpha version. This will help us to gather feedback from
>>> our community.
>>>
>>> The minor issues pointed out here can be fixed with the next alpha
>>> version(s). And we should try to release updates to the alpha version
>>> frequently. (also when its a low number of jiras fixed).
>> good idea. Do you mean things like 3.0.0-alpha1, 3.0.0-alpha2, etc. ? or do you
>> have a better naming convention in mind?
> Applause for the first v3 alpha release! I hope being able to play with it
> in the not so far away future... unfortunately, the start of this year is
> unusually busy for me.
>
> I think "3.0.0-alpha-1", "3.0.0-alpha-2" are pretty good until we eventually
> switch to 3.0.0-beta-1" and finally to "3.0.0" ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard