You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> on 2015/06/23 16:30:33 UTC
Releasing 2.7.1sdk ?
2.7.1sdk has 33 issues, including a couple relating to some regressions around
some CasCopier functionality that was accidentally dropped.
I'm thinking of releasing it after cleaning up the 2-3 remaining non-resolved
issues. Any other thoughts pro/con?
-Marshall
Re: Releasing 2.7.1sdk ?
Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.
+1
(I am also thinking about preparing a bugfix release for ruta)
Peter
Am 23.06.2015 um 16:30 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> 2.7.1sdk has 33 issues, including a couple relating to some regressions around
> some CasCopier functionality that was accidentally dropped.
>
> I'm thinking of releasing it after cleaning up the 2-3 remaining non-resolved
> issues. Any other thoughts pro/con?
>
> -Marshall
Re: Releasing 2.8.0?
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
OK. THanks for working this out!
-Marshall
On 6/25/2015 4:08 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Btw, I only enabled the semantic versioning plugin for uimaj-core.
> If there are other modules that should be considered as public API,
> the plugin should be enabled there as well.
>
> -- Richard
>
> On 24.06.2015, at 21:00, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't feel strongly one way or another. I do see now that it would be nice to
>> add a section to the Release Notes that describes the API changes (if any),
>> perhaps grouped into some categories.
>>
>> -Marshall
>
Re: Releasing 2.8.0?
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Btw, I only enabled the semantic versioning plugin for uimaj-core.
If there are other modules that should be considered as public API,
the plugin should be enabled there as well.
-- Richard
On 24.06.2015, at 21:00, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't feel strongly one way or another. I do see now that it would be nice to
> add a section to the Release Notes that describes the API changes (if any),
> perhaps grouped into some categories.
>
> -Marshall
Re: Releasing 2.8.0?
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Hi,
I don't feel strongly one way or another. I do see now that it would be nice to
add a section to the Release Notes that describes the API changes (if any),
perhaps grouped into some categories.
-Marshall
On 6/24/2015 8:19 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> I understand that the "warning" is actually treated like an "error" by the plugin
> in the sense that the plugin exits with a failure state - badly chosen log level
> in my opinion.
>
> I think the infos are just what the tool found.
>
> The idea appears to be that whenever there is a change in public API, the middle
> version digit is supposed to change. I did personally also find that a bit strong.
> My feeling was that I only would like to increase the middle version if there were
> significant compatible improvements and for smallish extensions like the ones we
> see below, I'd probably have gone for the last digit.
>
> However, my gut feeling is that it may be better to stick to the strict rules of
> the semantic versioning and just consider the version to be something that is basically
> managed automatically instead of letting "marketing" influence the versioning scheme.
>
> So here I'd say that if we had wanted to do a 2.7.1 release, then we should have
> sticked to changes that do not affect the API in any way. And we didn't just restore
> a dropped API here, right? There are four new methods added and only one of them
> (CasCopier one) was actually a restore, wasn't it?
>
> Anyway, there are plenty of numbers. We'll hardly run out of them.
>
> -- Richard
>
> On 24.06.2015, at 14:04, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> In this list, I'm guessing the thing that triggered the failure is the
>> [WARNING], not the [INFO] - does that seem right?
>>
>> In that case, this may be an exception, since the [WARNING] change was in fact a
>> fix restoring the dropped API.
>>
>> I'm kind of on the fence on this one - though it does seem to me that a fix
>> *restoring* a dropped API might semantically feel more like a 2.7.1 than a 2.8.0.
>>
>> Other opinions?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On 6/24/2015 2:49 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I changed the configuration of the semantic versioning plugin for uimaj-core yesterday.
>>> According to the plugin, the next version should be 2.8.0 because public API has changed:
>>>
>>> [INFO]
>>> --- maven-enforcer-plugin:1.3.1:enforce (enforce-compatibility) @ uimaj-core ---
>>>
>>> [INFO] Version specified as <2.7.0>
>>> [INFO] Using </home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/maven-repositories/0/org/apache/uima/uimaj-core/2.7.0/uimaj-core-2.7.0.jar> as previous JAR
>>> [INFO] Using </home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/UIMA-SDK/trunk/uimaj-core/target/uima-core.jar> as current JAR
>>> Class org.apache.uima.jcas.JCas
>>> Added Method getAnnotationIndex, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/tcas/Annotation;>(Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/text/AnnotationIndex<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/text/AnnotationIndex;, access abstract public
>>> Added Method getAllIndexedFS, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/cas/TOP;>(Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIterator<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIterator;, access abstract public
>>> Added Method getIndex, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/cas/TOP;>(Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIndex<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIndex;, access abstract public
>>> Class org.apache.uima.util.CasCopier
>>> Added Method alreadyCopied, desc (Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FeatureStructure;)Z, access public
>>>
>>> [WARNING] Rule 0: org.semver.enforcer.RequireBackwardCompatibility failed with message:
>>>
>>> Current codebase is not backward compatible (BACKWARD_COMPATIBLE_IMPLEMENTER) with version <2.7.0>. Compatibility type has been detected as <BACKWARD_COMPATIBLE_USER>
>>>
>>>
>>> So since we have +1s recently for semantic versioning, how about making it a 2.8.0?
>>>
>>>
>>> As a side-note: this broke the build and somebody immediately opened a ticket on
>>> Stackoverflow asking about the broken build. Anyway, I don't regret breaking it.
>>> IMHO one function of a CI system is to take the build load and waiting time off
>>> from the local developer (machines).
>>>
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31016180/failed-to-execute-maven-enforcer-plugin/31019408#31019408
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -- Richard
>>>
>>> On 23.06.2015, at 16:30, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2.7.1sdk has 33 issues, including a couple relating to some regressions around
>>>> some CasCopier functionality that was accidentally dropped.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking of releasing it after cleaning up the 2-3 remaining non-resolved
>>>> issues. Any other thoughts pro/con?
>>>>
>>>> -Marshall
>
Re: Releasing 2.8.0?
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
I understand that the "warning" is actually treated like an "error" by the plugin
in the sense that the plugin exits with a failure state - badly chosen log level
in my opinion.
I think the infos are just what the tool found.
The idea appears to be that whenever there is a change in public API, the middle
version digit is supposed to change. I did personally also find that a bit strong.
My feeling was that I only would like to increase the middle version if there were
significant compatible improvements and for smallish extensions like the ones we
see below, I'd probably have gone for the last digit.
However, my gut feeling is that it may be better to stick to the strict rules of
the semantic versioning and just consider the version to be something that is basically
managed automatically instead of letting "marketing" influence the versioning scheme.
So here I'd say that if we had wanted to do a 2.7.1 release, then we should have
sticked to changes that do not affect the API in any way. And we didn't just restore
a dropped API here, right? There are four new methods added and only one of them
(CasCopier one) was actually a restore, wasn't it?
Anyway, there are plenty of numbers. We'll hardly run out of them.
-- Richard
On 24.06.2015, at 14:04, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> In this list, I'm guessing the thing that triggered the failure is the
> [WARNING], not the [INFO] - does that seem right?
>
> In that case, this may be an exception, since the [WARNING] change was in fact a
> fix restoring the dropped API.
>
> I'm kind of on the fence on this one - though it does seem to me that a fix
> *restoring* a dropped API might semantically feel more like a 2.7.1 than a 2.8.0.
>
> Other opinions?
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 6/24/2015 2:49 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I changed the configuration of the semantic versioning plugin for uimaj-core yesterday.
>> According to the plugin, the next version should be 2.8.0 because public API has changed:
>>
>> [INFO]
>> --- maven-enforcer-plugin:1.3.1:enforce (enforce-compatibility) @ uimaj-core ---
>>
>> [INFO] Version specified as <2.7.0>
>> [INFO] Using </home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/maven-repositories/0/org/apache/uima/uimaj-core/2.7.0/uimaj-core-2.7.0.jar> as previous JAR
>> [INFO] Using </home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/UIMA-SDK/trunk/uimaj-core/target/uima-core.jar> as current JAR
>> Class org.apache.uima.jcas.JCas
>> Added Method getAnnotationIndex, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/tcas/Annotation;>(Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/text/AnnotationIndex<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/text/AnnotationIndex;, access abstract public
>> Added Method getAllIndexedFS, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/cas/TOP;>(Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIterator<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIterator;, access abstract public
>> Added Method getIndex, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/cas/TOP;>(Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIndex<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIndex;, access abstract public
>> Class org.apache.uima.util.CasCopier
>> Added Method alreadyCopied, desc (Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FeatureStructure;)Z, access public
>>
>> [WARNING] Rule 0: org.semver.enforcer.RequireBackwardCompatibility failed with message:
>>
>> Current codebase is not backward compatible (BACKWARD_COMPATIBLE_IMPLEMENTER) with version <2.7.0>. Compatibility type has been detected as <BACKWARD_COMPATIBLE_USER>
>>
>>
>> So since we have +1s recently for semantic versioning, how about making it a 2.8.0?
>>
>>
>> As a side-note: this broke the build and somebody immediately opened a ticket on
>> Stackoverflow asking about the broken build. Anyway, I don't regret breaking it.
>> IMHO one function of a CI system is to take the build load and waiting time off
>> from the local developer (machines).
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31016180/failed-to-execute-maven-enforcer-plugin/31019408#31019408
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Richard
>>
>> On 23.06.2015, at 16:30, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2.7.1sdk has 33 issues, including a couple relating to some regressions around
>>> some CasCopier functionality that was accidentally dropped.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of releasing it after cleaning up the 2-3 remaining non-resolved
>>> issues. Any other thoughts pro/con?
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>
>
Re: Releasing 2.8.0?
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
In this list, I'm guessing the thing that triggered the failure is the
[WARNING], not the [INFO] - does that seem right?
In that case, this may be an exception, since the [WARNING] change was in fact a
fix restoring the dropped API.
I'm kind of on the fence on this one - though it does seem to me that a fix
*restoring* a dropped API might semantically feel more like a 2.7.1 than a 2.8.0.
Other opinions?
-Marshall
On 6/24/2015 2:49 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I changed the configuration of the semantic versioning plugin for uimaj-core yesterday.
> According to the plugin, the next version should be 2.8.0 because public API has changed:
>
> [INFO]
> --- maven-enforcer-plugin:1.3.1:enforce (enforce-compatibility) @ uimaj-core ---
>
> [INFO] Version specified as <2.7.0>
> [INFO] Using </home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/maven-repositories/0/org/apache/uima/uimaj-core/2.7.0/uimaj-core-2.7.0.jar> as previous JAR
> [INFO] Using </home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/UIMA-SDK/trunk/uimaj-core/target/uima-core.jar> as current JAR
> Class org.apache.uima.jcas.JCas
> Added Method getAnnotationIndex, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/tcas/Annotation;>(Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/text/AnnotationIndex<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/text/AnnotationIndex;, access abstract public
> Added Method getAllIndexedFS, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/cas/TOP;>(Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIterator<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIterator;, access abstract public
> Added Method getIndex, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/cas/TOP;>(Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIndex<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIndex;, access abstract public
> Class org.apache.uima.util.CasCopier
> Added Method alreadyCopied, desc (Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FeatureStructure;)Z, access public
>
> [WARNING] Rule 0: org.semver.enforcer.RequireBackwardCompatibility failed with message:
>
> Current codebase is not backward compatible (BACKWARD_COMPATIBLE_IMPLEMENTER) with version <2.7.0>. Compatibility type has been detected as <BACKWARD_COMPATIBLE_USER>
>
>
> So since we have +1s recently for semantic versioning, how about making it a 2.8.0?
>
>
> As a side-note: this broke the build and somebody immediately opened a ticket on
> Stackoverflow asking about the broken build. Anyway, I don't regret breaking it.
> IMHO one function of a CI system is to take the build load and waiting time off
> from the local developer (machines).
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31016180/failed-to-execute-maven-enforcer-plugin/31019408#31019408
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
>
> On 23.06.2015, at 16:30, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> 2.7.1sdk has 33 issues, including a couple relating to some regressions around
>> some CasCopier functionality that was accidentally dropped.
>>
>> I'm thinking of releasing it after cleaning up the 2-3 remaining non-resolved
>> issues. Any other thoughts pro/con?
>>
>> -Marshall
>
Re: Releasing 2.8.0? (was: 2.7.1sdk ?)
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
I changed the configuration of the semantic versioning plugin for uimaj-core yesterday.
According to the plugin, the next version should be 2.8.0 because public API has changed:
[INFO]
--- maven-enforcer-plugin:1.3.1:enforce (enforce-compatibility) @ uimaj-core ---
[INFO] Version specified as <2.7.0>
[INFO] Using </home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/maven-repositories/0/org/apache/uima/uimaj-core/2.7.0/uimaj-core-2.7.0.jar> as previous JAR
[INFO] Using </home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/UIMA-SDK/trunk/uimaj-core/target/uima-core.jar> as current JAR
Class org.apache.uima.jcas.JCas
Added Method getAnnotationIndex, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/tcas/Annotation;>(Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/text/AnnotationIndex<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/text/AnnotationIndex;, access abstract public
Added Method getAllIndexedFS, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/cas/TOP;>(Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIterator<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIterator;, access abstract public
Added Method getIndex, sig <T:Lorg/apache/uima/jcas/cas/TOP;>(Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Class<TT;>;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIndex<TT;>;, desc (Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Class;)Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FSIndex;, access abstract public
Class org.apache.uima.util.CasCopier
Added Method alreadyCopied, desc (Lorg/apache/uima/cas/FeatureStructure;)Z, access public
[WARNING] Rule 0: org.semver.enforcer.RequireBackwardCompatibility failed with message:
Current codebase is not backward compatible (BACKWARD_COMPATIBLE_IMPLEMENTER) with version <2.7.0>. Compatibility type has been detected as <BACKWARD_COMPATIBLE_USER>
So since we have +1s recently for semantic versioning, how about making it a 2.8.0?
As a side-note: this broke the build and somebody immediately opened a ticket on
Stackoverflow asking about the broken build. Anyway, I don't regret breaking it.
IMHO one function of a CI system is to take the build load and waiting time off
from the local developer (machines).
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31016180/failed-to-execute-maven-enforcer-plugin/31019408#31019408
Cheers,
-- Richard
On 23.06.2015, at 16:30, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> 2.7.1sdk has 33 issues, including a couple relating to some regressions around
> some CasCopier functionality that was accidentally dropped.
>
> I'm thinking of releasing it after cleaning up the 2-3 remaining non-resolved
> issues. Any other thoughts pro/con?
>
> -Marshall