You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de> on 2013/02/18 14:19:13 UTC
[VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Hi,
the 6th release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker
is ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
Staging repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-242/
SVN tag:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6
Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
textmarker-2.0.0:
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-update-site
Archive with all sources:
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
Binary distributions:
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/
The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
They can also be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
Documentation (pdf file):
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
This RC includes recently resolved issues, e.g., the Eclipse 4.2 support.
Please vote on release:
[ ] +1 OK to release
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
Thanks.
Peter
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Oh... thanks. I thought release/uima meant the second file. I will add it.
Peter
On 27.02.2013 13:54, Marshall Schor wrote:
> Peter - don't forget to add your public key to the KEYS file on
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/uima/KEYS
>
> I see you've already updated the KEYS file on our website (in SVN:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/site/trunk/uima-website/docs/KEYS ).
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 2/27/2013 6:42 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> [x] +1 OK to release, provided binary assemblies are excluded from release.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On 2/18/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the 6th release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>>
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-242/
>>>
>>> SVN tag:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6
>>>
>>>
>>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-update-site
>>>
>>>
>>> Archive with all sources:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>>
>>>
>>> Binary distributions:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/
>>>
>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>> They can also be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>>
>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This RC includes recently resolved issues, e.g., the Eclipse 4.2 support.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please vote on release:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Peter - don't forget to add your public key to the KEYS file on
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/uima/KEYS
I see you've already updated the KEYS file on our website (in SVN:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/site/trunk/uima-website/docs/KEYS ).
-Marshall
On 2/27/2013 6:42 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> [x] +1 OK to release, provided binary assemblies are excluded from release.
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 2/18/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the 6th release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-242/
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6
>>
>>
>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-update-site
>>
>>
>> Archive with all sources:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>
>>
>> Binary distributions:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/
>>
>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>> They can also be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>
>> Documentation (pdf file):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> This RC includes recently resolved issues, e.g., the Eclipse 4.2 support.
>>
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@apache.org>.
If there are no objections, I will commit the changes for the website
since they are not really invasive and fulfill their purpose.
Has anyone an idea why
http://uima.apache.org/d/textmarker-current/tools.textmarker.book.html
is not accessible?
Peter
On 06.03.2013 15:03, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 06.03.2013 13:43, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> On 05.03.2013 16:15, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2013 5:25 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The vote passes with the following result:
>>>>
>>>> +1 Marshall Schor
>>>> +1 Tommaso Teofili
>>>> +1 Peter Klügl
>>>>
>>>> No other votes were received.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to you all, and special thanks to Marshall for all the help
>>>> and for
>>>> investing so much time :-)
>>>>
>>>> I will proceed with the checklist:
>>>> http://uima.apache.org/release.html#Releasing
>>>>
>>>> Are there any opinions on textmarker's web-presence, e.g., download
>>>> and
>>>> documentation?
>>> Yes, it should have this :-)
>>>
>>> I suggest the documentation go on the website under
>>> docs/d/textmarker-current/
>>> (we normally have the website accessible docs for the current
>>> release, but
>>> sometimes may need others). The pointers to this could be in
>>> several places.
>>> It should have at least the same presence as other "sandbox" items,
>>> but given
>>> its new-ness and the amount of "stuff" that it entails, it seems to
>>> me it could
>>> have somewhat more prominence.
>>
>> I added a short text to the sandbox components, which points to the
>> new page and to other locations, but the documentation is not
>> available. Did I miss something? Do I need to do something in order
>> to publish the /d/ stuff?
>>
>> About the link: If it is OK, then I am so bold and will include a
>> link between "Addons and Sandbox" and "External Resources" in the
>> left navigation menu.
>>
>>
>>> The download: The download page, because of repetitive complexity, is a
>>> combination of normal web markup plus generated things. The
>>> generated things
>>> come from specs in the file xdocs/stylesheets/project.xml
>>>
>>> It looks like a bit of redesign is warranted to support TextMarker
>>> and the
>>> pending release of individual add-ons.
>>>
>>> I suggest another "box" for these, which looks like the existing one
>>> but has 1
>>> more column - the release date (in the other "boxes", the release
>>> date was put
>>> in the title above the box, but that kind of breaks down when the
>>> rows in the
>>> box all might have different release dates).
>>>
>>> Let me know if you need help with doing this.
>>
>> I will take a look at it now :-)
>
> Hmm.. I am not sure about the best way to design or implement it.
>
> Nevertheless, I prepared something. It's not very nice and I am
> abusing the version parameter. The xml elements have additional
> attributes and the script adds the html elements dependent on their
> existence. For textmarker, there is now not a table for a release
> version, but for all versions of the component.
>
> Here's the download page:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/site/downloads.html
> ... and the main site with the textmarker link:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/site/
>
> If the solution is OK for now, then I would extend the news and send
> an announce mail.
>
> Peter
>
>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I have an idea.
I've done an experiment to "confirm", which will take maybe an hour... If
confirmed, it's an infra issue and I'll post a Jira. Otherwise, I'll ask about
it on the infra list.
The thing I'm guessing is happening is that some part of the "rsync" system that
was set up prior to the current method of pub/sub publishing didn't get quite
shut off, and/or the pubsub is excluding the docs/d directory.
I removed a silly index.html file in the old pub spot on people.a.o, and if it
disappears in an hour or so on the website, this will confirm that the rsynch is
still running...
-Marshall
On 3/7/2013 6:33 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> If there are no objections, I will commit the changes for the website
> since they are not really invasive and fulfill their purpose.
>
> Has anyone an idea why
> http://uima.apache.org/d/textmarker-current/tools.textmarker.book.html
> is not accessible?
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 06.03.2013 15:03, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> On 06.03.2013 13:43, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> On 05.03.2013 16:15, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2013 5:25 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes with the following result:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 Marshall Schor
>>>>> +1 Tommaso Teofili
>>>>> +1 Peter Klügl
>>>>>
>>>>> No other votes were received.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to you all, and special thanks to Marshall for all the help
>>>>> and for
>>>>> investing so much time :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I will proceed with the checklist:
>>>>> http://uima.apache.org/release.html#Releasing
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any opinions on textmarker's web-presence, e.g., download
>>>>> and
>>>>> documentation?
>>>> Yes, it should have this :-)
>>>>
>>>> I suggest the documentation go on the website under
>>>> docs/d/textmarker-current/
>>>> (we normally have the website accessible docs for the current
>>>> release, but
>>>> sometimes may need others). The pointers to this could be in
>>>> several places.
>>>> It should have at least the same presence as other "sandbox" items,
>>>> but given
>>>> its new-ness and the amount of "stuff" that it entails, it seems to
>>>> me it could
>>>> have somewhat more prominence.
>>> I added a short text to the sandbox components, which points to the
>>> new page and to other locations, but the documentation is not
>>> available. Did I miss something? Do I need to do something in order
>>> to publish the /d/ stuff?
>>>
>>> About the link: If it is OK, then I am so bold and will include a
>>> link between "Addons and Sandbox" and "External Resources" in the
>>> left navigation menu.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The download: The download page, because of repetitive complexity, is a
>>>> combination of normal web markup plus generated things. The
>>>> generated things
>>>> come from specs in the file xdocs/stylesheets/project.xml
>>>>
>>>> It looks like a bit of redesign is warranted to support TextMarker
>>>> and the
>>>> pending release of individual add-ons.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest another "box" for these, which looks like the existing one
>>>> but has 1
>>>> more column - the release date (in the other "boxes", the release
>>>> date was put
>>>> in the title above the box, but that kind of breaks down when the
>>>> rows in the
>>>> box all might have different release dates).
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you need help with doing this.
>>> I will take a look at it now :-)
>> Hmm.. I am not sure about the best way to design or implement it.
>>
>> Nevertheless, I prepared something. It's not very nice and I am
>> abusing the version parameter. The xml elements have additional
>> attributes and the script adds the html elements dependent on their
>> existence. For textmarker, there is now not a table for a release
>> version, but for all versions of the component.
>>
>> Here's the download page:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/site/downloads.html
>> ... and the main site with the textmarker link:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/site/
>>
>> If the solution is OK for now, then I would extend the news and send
>> an announce mail.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>> -Marshall
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
If there are no objections, I will commit the changes for the website
since they are not really invasive and fulfill their purpose.
Has anyone an idea why
http://uima.apache.org/d/textmarker-current/tools.textmarker.book.html
is not accessible?
Peter
On 06.03.2013 15:03, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 06.03.2013 13:43, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> On 05.03.2013 16:15, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2013 5:25 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The vote passes with the following result:
>>>>
>>>> +1 Marshall Schor
>>>> +1 Tommaso Teofili
>>>> +1 Peter Klügl
>>>>
>>>> No other votes were received.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to you all, and special thanks to Marshall for all the help
>>>> and for
>>>> investing so much time :-)
>>>>
>>>> I will proceed with the checklist:
>>>> http://uima.apache.org/release.html#Releasing
>>>>
>>>> Are there any opinions on textmarker's web-presence, e.g., download
>>>> and
>>>> documentation?
>>> Yes, it should have this :-)
>>>
>>> I suggest the documentation go on the website under
>>> docs/d/textmarker-current/
>>> (we normally have the website accessible docs for the current
>>> release, but
>>> sometimes may need others). The pointers to this could be in
>>> several places.
>>> It should have at least the same presence as other "sandbox" items,
>>> but given
>>> its new-ness and the amount of "stuff" that it entails, it seems to
>>> me it could
>>> have somewhat more prominence.
>>
>> I added a short text to the sandbox components, which points to the
>> new page and to other locations, but the documentation is not
>> available. Did I miss something? Do I need to do something in order
>> to publish the /d/ stuff?
>>
>> About the link: If it is OK, then I am so bold and will include a
>> link between "Addons and Sandbox" and "External Resources" in the
>> left navigation menu.
>>
>>
>>> The download: The download page, because of repetitive complexity, is a
>>> combination of normal web markup plus generated things. The
>>> generated things
>>> come from specs in the file xdocs/stylesheets/project.xml
>>>
>>> It looks like a bit of redesign is warranted to support TextMarker
>>> and the
>>> pending release of individual add-ons.
>>>
>>> I suggest another "box" for these, which looks like the existing one
>>> but has 1
>>> more column - the release date (in the other "boxes", the release
>>> date was put
>>> in the title above the box, but that kind of breaks down when the
>>> rows in the
>>> box all might have different release dates).
>>>
>>> Let me know if you need help with doing this.
>>
>> I will take a look at it now :-)
>
> Hmm.. I am not sure about the best way to design or implement it.
>
> Nevertheless, I prepared something. It's not very nice and I am
> abusing the version parameter. The xml elements have additional
> attributes and the script adds the html elements dependent on their
> existence. For textmarker, there is now not a table for a release
> version, but for all versions of the component.
>
> Here's the download page:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/site/downloads.html
> ... and the main site with the textmarker link:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/site/
>
> If the solution is OK for now, then I would extend the news and send
> an announce mail.
>
> Peter
>
>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 06.03.2013 13:43, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 05.03.2013 16:15, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> On 3/5/2013 5:25 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The vote passes with the following result:
>>>
>>> +1 Marshall Schor
>>> +1 Tommaso Teofili
>>> +1 Peter Klügl
>>>
>>> No other votes were received.
>>>
>>> Thanks to you all, and special thanks to Marshall for all the help
>>> and for
>>> investing so much time :-)
>>>
>>> I will proceed with the checklist:
>>> http://uima.apache.org/release.html#Releasing
>>>
>>> Are there any opinions on textmarker's web-presence, e.g., download and
>>> documentation?
>> Yes, it should have this :-)
>>
>> I suggest the documentation go on the website under
>> docs/d/textmarker-current/
>> (we normally have the website accessible docs for the current
>> release, but
>> sometimes may need others). The pointers to this could be in several
>> places.
>> It should have at least the same presence as other "sandbox" items,
>> but given
>> its new-ness and the amount of "stuff" that it entails, it seems to
>> me it could
>> have somewhat more prominence.
>
> I added a short text to the sandbox components, which points to the
> new page and to other locations, but the documentation is not
> available. Did I miss something? Do I need to do something in order to
> publish the /d/ stuff?
>
> About the link: If it is OK, then I am so bold and will include a link
> between "Addons and Sandbox" and "External Resources" in the left
> navigation menu.
>
>
>> The download: The download page, because of repetitive complexity, is a
>> combination of normal web markup plus generated things. The
>> generated things
>> come from specs in the file xdocs/stylesheets/project.xml
>>
>> It looks like a bit of redesign is warranted to support TextMarker
>> and the
>> pending release of individual add-ons.
>>
>> I suggest another "box" for these, which looks like the existing one
>> but has 1
>> more column - the release date (in the other "boxes", the release
>> date was put
>> in the title above the box, but that kind of breaks down when the
>> rows in the
>> box all might have different release dates).
>>
>> Let me know if you need help with doing this.
>
> I will take a look at it now :-)
Hmm.. I am not sure about the best way to design or implement it.
Nevertheless, I prepared something. It's not very nice and I am abusing
the version parameter. The xml elements have additional attributes and
the script adds the html elements dependent on their existence. For
textmarker, there is now not a table for a release version, but for all
versions of the component.
Here's the download page:
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/site/downloads.html
... and the main site with the textmarker link:
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/site/
If the solution is OK for now, then I would extend the news and send an
announce mail.
Peter
>
> Peter
>
>> -Marshall
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 05.03.2013 16:15, Marshall Schor wrote:
> On 3/5/2013 5:25 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The vote passes with the following result:
>>
>> +1 Marshall Schor
>> +1 Tommaso Teofili
>> +1 Peter Klügl
>>
>> No other votes were received.
>>
>> Thanks to you all, and special thanks to Marshall for all the help and for
>> investing so much time :-)
>>
>> I will proceed with the checklist: http://uima.apache.org/release.html#Releasing
>>
>> Are there any opinions on textmarker's web-presence, e.g., download and
>> documentation?
> Yes, it should have this :-)
>
> I suggest the documentation go on the website under docs/d/textmarker-current/
> (we normally have the website accessible docs for the current release, but
> sometimes may need others). The pointers to this could be in several places.
> It should have at least the same presence as other "sandbox" items, but given
> its new-ness and the amount of "stuff" that it entails, it seems to me it could
> have somewhat more prominence.
I added a short text to the sandbox components, which points to the new
page and to other locations, but the documentation is not available. Did
I miss something? Do I need to do something in order to publish the /d/
stuff?
About the link: If it is OK, then I am so bold and will include a link
between "Addons and Sandbox" and "External Resources" in the left
navigation menu.
> The download: The download page, because of repetitive complexity, is a
> combination of normal web markup plus generated things. The generated things
> come from specs in the file xdocs/stylesheets/project.xml
>
> It looks like a bit of redesign is warranted to support TextMarker and the
> pending release of individual add-ons.
>
> I suggest another "box" for these, which looks like the existing one but has 1
> more column - the release date (in the other "boxes", the release date was put
> in the title above the box, but that kind of breaks down when the rows in the
> box all might have different release dates).
>
> Let me know if you need help with doing this.
I will take a look at it now :-)
Peter
> -Marshall
>>
>> Peter
>>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Re: the download: the only thing to download in this release is the
source-release.zip, I think (since we're not releasing the binary zip/tar
assemblies at this time). The other artifacts are released to Maven Central.
-Marshall
On 3/5/2013 10:15 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> On 3/5/2013 5:25 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The vote passes with the following result:
>>
>> +1 Marshall Schor
>> +1 Tommaso Teofili
>> +1 Peter Klügl
>>
>> No other votes were received.
>>
>> Thanks to you all, and special thanks to Marshall for all the help and for
>> investing so much time :-)
>>
>> I will proceed with the checklist: http://uima.apache.org/release.html#Releasing
>>
>> Are there any opinions on textmarker's web-presence, e.g., download and
>> documentation?
> Yes, it should have this :-)
>
> I suggest the documentation go on the website under docs/d/textmarker-current/
> (we normally have the website accessible docs for the current release, but
> sometimes may need others). The pointers to this could be in several places.
> It should have at least the same presence as other "sandbox" items, but given
> its new-ness and the amount of "stuff" that it entails, it seems to me it could
> have somewhat more prominence.
>
> The download: The download page, because of repetitive complexity, is a
> combination of normal web markup plus generated things. The generated things
> come from specs in the file xdocs/stylesheets/project.xml
>
> It looks like a bit of redesign is warranted to support TextMarker and the
> pending release of individual add-ons.
>
> I suggest another "box" for these, which looks like the existing one but has 1
> more column - the release date (in the other "boxes", the release date was put
> in the title above the box, but that kind of breaks down when the rows in the
> box all might have different release dates).
>
> Let me know if you need help with doing this.
>
> -Marshall
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 3/5/2013 5:25 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The vote passes with the following result:
>
> +1 Marshall Schor
> +1 Tommaso Teofili
> +1 Peter Klügl
>
> No other votes were received.
>
> Thanks to you all, and special thanks to Marshall for all the help and for
> investing so much time :-)
>
> I will proceed with the checklist: http://uima.apache.org/release.html#Releasing
>
> Are there any opinions on textmarker's web-presence, e.g., download and
> documentation?
Yes, it should have this :-)
I suggest the documentation go on the website under docs/d/textmarker-current/
(we normally have the website accessible docs for the current release, but
sometimes may need others). The pointers to this could be in several places.
It should have at least the same presence as other "sandbox" items, but given
its new-ness and the amount of "stuff" that it entails, it seems to me it could
have somewhat more prominence.
The download: The download page, because of repetitive complexity, is a
combination of normal web markup plus generated things. The generated things
come from specs in the file xdocs/stylesheets/project.xml
It looks like a bit of redesign is warranted to support TextMarker and the
pending release of individual add-ons.
I suggest another "box" for these, which looks like the existing one but has 1
more column - the release date (in the other "boxes", the release date was put
in the title above the box, but that kind of breaks down when the rows in the
box all might have different release dates).
Let me know if you need help with doing this.
-Marshall
>
>
> Peter
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 3/5/2013 9:58 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> I will replace the update site in release/uima, right?
>
> Just asking in order to avoid mistakes on my side.
We're all learning here :-). But, yes, that is my understanding.
-Marshall
>
> Peter
>
> On 05.03.2013 11:25, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The vote passes with the following result:
>>
>> +1 Marshall Schor
>> +1 Tommaso Teofili
>> +1 Peter Klügl
>>
>> No other votes were received.
>>
>> Thanks to you all, and special thanks to Marshall for all the help and for
>> investing so much time :-)
>>
>> I will proceed with the checklist: http://uima.apache.org/release.html#Releasing
>>
>> Are there any opinions on textmarker's web-presence, e.g., download and
>> documentation?
>>
>>
>> Peter
>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
I will replace the update site in release/uima, right?
Just asking in order to avoid mistakes on my side.
Peter
On 05.03.2013 11:25, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The vote passes with the following result:
>
> +1 Marshall Schor
> +1 Tommaso Teofili
> +1 Peter Klügl
>
> No other votes were received.
>
> Thanks to you all, and special thanks to Marshall for all the help and
> for investing so much time :-)
>
> I will proceed with the checklist:
> http://uima.apache.org/release.html#Releasing
>
> Are there any opinions on textmarker's web-presence, e.g., download
> and documentation?
>
>
> Peter
[RESULT][VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Hi,
The vote passes with the following result:
+1 Marshall Schor
+1 Tommaso Teofili
+1 Peter Klügl
No other votes were received.
Thanks to you all, and special thanks to Marshall for all the help and
for investing so much time :-)
I will proceed with the checklist:
http://uima.apache.org/release.html#Releasing
Are there any opinions on textmarker's web-presence, e.g., download and
documentation?
Peter
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
here I am guys, sorry for being late.
+1 for releasing.
Tommaso
p.s.:
BTW some time ago there's been a discussion on general@incubator about
releases containing binaries (either binary packages or sources with binary
dependencies) which turned out to the fact that we at ASF (and more
generally in OSS I think) release open source so basically each release
vote should only "deal" with the sources, binaries should be considered
something like "convenience" packages, here's the link to the thread :
http://markmail.org/thread/a4kbf33vn57dkz2j
2013/3/4 Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>
> Just a gentle reminder to bring this topic up again.
>
> The vote was started two weeks ago. Are there any volunteers for
> reviewing/voting?
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On 27.02.2013 12:49, Peter Klügl wrote:
>
>> +1 (binary assemblies excluded)
>>
>> I think we need at least three votes, right?
>>
>> Can I win someone for some reviewing?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On 27.02.2013 12:42, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>
>>> [x] +1 OK to release, provided binary assemblies are excluded from
>>> release.
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>> On 2/18/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> the 6th release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker
>>>> is
>>>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>>>
>>>> Staging repository:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/**content/repositories/**
>>>> orgapacheuima-242/<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-242/>
>>>>
>>>> SVN tag:
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/**
>>>> tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>>>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~**pkluegl/uima-releases/**
>>>> textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-**update-site<http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-update-site>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Archive with all sources:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~**pkluegl/uima-releases/**
>>>> textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/**textmarker-2.0.0-source-**release.zip<http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Binary distributions:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~**pkluegl/uima-releases/**
>>>> textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/<http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/>
>>>>
>>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>>> They can also be found here:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/issues/?jql=project%20%**
>>>> 3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%**20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%**
>>>> 20AND%20component%20%3D%**20TextMarker%20AND%20status%**
>>>> 20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%**20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>>>
>>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~**pkluegl/uima-releases/**
>>>> textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.**textmarker.book.pdf<http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.textmarker.book.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This RC includes recently resolved issues, e.g., the Eclipse 4.2
>>>> support.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please vote on release:
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Just a gentle reminder to bring this topic up again.
The vote was started two weeks ago. Are there any volunteers for
reviewing/voting?
Best,
Peter
On 27.02.2013 12:49, Peter Klügl wrote:
> +1 (binary assemblies excluded)
>
> I think we need at least three votes, right?
>
> Can I win someone for some reviewing?
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 27.02.2013 12:42, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> [x] +1 OK to release, provided binary assemblies are excluded from
>> release.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On 2/18/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the 6th release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA
>>> TextMarker is
>>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>>
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-242/
>>>
>>> SVN tag:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-update-site
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archive with all sources:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Binary distributions:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/
>>>
>>>
>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>> They can also be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>>
>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This RC includes recently resolved issues, e.g., the Eclipse 4.2
>>> support.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please vote on release:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
+1 (binary assemblies excluded)
I think we need at least three votes, right?
Can I win someone for some reviewing?
Peter
On 27.02.2013 12:42, Marshall Schor wrote:
> [x] +1 OK to release, provided binary assemblies are excluded from release.
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 2/18/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the 6th release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-242/
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6
>>
>>
>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-update-site
>>
>>
>> Archive with all sources:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>
>>
>> Binary distributions:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/
>>
>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>> They can also be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>
>> Documentation (pdf file):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> This RC includes recently resolved issues, e.g., the Eclipse 4.2 support.
>>
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
[x] +1 OK to release, provided binary assemblies are excluded from release.
-Marshall
On 2/18/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the 6th release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-242/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6
>
>
> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
> textmarker-2.0.0:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-update-site
>
>
> Archive with all sources:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>
>
> Binary distributions:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/
>
> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
> They can also be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
>
>
> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>
> Documentation (pdf file):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>
>
>
> This RC includes recently resolved issues, e.g., the Eclipse 4.2 support.
>
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/26/2013 11:06 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 26.02.2013 16:04, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> On 2/26/2013 8:52 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> On 26.02.2013 14:33, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2013 6:16 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>>>> On 02/26/2013 10:29 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>>>> I think I have to reread the howtos. I thought the License/Notice files only
>>>>>> have to cover the stuff in the binaries. If antlr needs to be covered, what
>>>>>> about the htmlparser?
>>>>> That is correct, you must only mention artifacts which are redistributed.
>>>>> If the anltr or htmlparser jar is not included in the binary distribution you
>>>>> should not mention them.
>>>> +1.
>>>> <snip>
>
> You had a good point in your mail "Suggestion to add a binary zip/tar
> distributable": A distribution for users that do not use maven or eclipse, but
> want to use the AE or the example project. Thus, the distribution contains,
> for example, the example project and the engine plugin, which can be used to
> run the AE if you have uima in your classpath.
>
> I have refrained from including everything textmarker needs to be applied
> because this would also include uimaj, but maybe it is reasonable to include
> only the other dependencies. In a scenario like "download the UIMA Java
> framework and then the UIMA TextMarker dist", the "uima-textmarker.jar" (which
> should be renamed to textmarker-core.jar!) would still be not very useful
> since the other dependencies are not included. On the other hand, the engine
> plugin should do the job, even if using an eclipse bundle is not a very nice
> solution.
>
> The documentation contains no information about setting up projects in a
> normal java environment right now, but focuses on the language and the
> workbench. Maybe I am a bit naive, but I thought that the targeted users
> already know what needs to be done to set up a java/uima project (e.g., adding
> the libs to your classpath). Such a description should also cover how to
> include textmarker in maven-based projects.
>
> I would add this kind of information rather to a webpage than to the
> documentation, which remind me that something should be done about the
> web-presence of textmarker.
>
> I see five options to proceed:
> 1. remove the binary assembly from the release
> 2. keep it as it is right now
> 3. keep it as it is, but add a description somewhere how to set up java projects
> 4. extend it by adding the other dependencies (e.g., antlr) and add a note
> about downloading the UIMA Java framework
> 5. extend it by adding everything including uimaj
>
> I prefer the former options (especially 2.) and would improve the usage of
> textmarker in other scenarios in the following releases :-)
>
I think that because this is a Sandbox release, and the first one, that it's OK
to have some unfinished rough edges. I do think it ought to have a certain
level of internal consistency, though. Because there's currently no
documentation on how users would use the binary assembly, and, indeed, there may
be undocumented install steps, such as stated above - renaming a JAR, I think
the user community would get the best impression of this new project's first
release if we went with option 1.
I would be OK, also, with option 2, but think it might reduce the impression new
users would have of this project, a bit, so I prefer it less :-).
-Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 26.02.2013 16:04, Marshall Schor wrote:
> On 2/26/2013 8:52 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> On 26.02.2013 14:33, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2013 6:16 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>>> On 02/26/2013 10:29 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>>> I think I have to reread the howtos. I thought the License/Notice files only
>>>>> have to cover the stuff in the binaries. If antlr needs to be covered, what
>>>>> about the htmlparser?
>>>> That is correct, you must only mention artifacts which are redistributed.
>>>> If the anltr or htmlparser jar is not included in the binary distribution you
>>>> should not mention them.
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> The reason I thought you needed to include the Antlr things was because in the
>>> JAR's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES file, antlr things (and, yes, HTML Parser things,
>>> too) are listed.
>>>
>>> I believe this is because the POM specifies these as dependencies. But I see
>>> they are not included (embedded) in the JAR. But I guess the JAR has calls out
>>> to ANTLR and HTML Parser APIs.
>>>
>>> Is this JAR (which is the only non-Eclipse plugin JAR in the binary zip/tar, I
>>> think), intended to be used in a non-Eclipse setup?
>>>
>>> Since I found this JAR in the "convenience" binary assembly, I presume there is
>>> some intent that people who download this and unzip it want to be able to run
>>> something. The normal convention for "convenience" binaries is to include
>>> dependent JARs in a lib/ directory, or provide some install information that
>>> tells the user what they need to do to complete an install of the binary. But I
>>> don't see Jars for these included in the convenience binary assembly.
>>>
>>> So, I'm probably just confused as to the purpose of the binary assembly - what
>>> the expectation is that a user would do with this... I thought it was for
>>> non-Eclipse, non- workbench uses. I took a quick look in the textmarker book to
>>> see if this packaging was described and had install / use instructions but
>>> didn't see this (but maybe I missed it).
>>>
>>> So - bottom line - the Antlr and HTML parser license/notice do not have to be
>>> included in this JAR (because these artifacts are not included with the JAR).
>>> Since the JAR has dependencies on these, if it is intended to be used in a
>>> non-Eclipse environment, then a convenience binary should include these JARs or
>>> tell the user how to get them, I think.
>> Yes. I did not include the jars of the dependencies (antlr) in the binary
>> distribution because then I probably should also include the complete uimaj
>> release since textmarker won't do anything without the uimaj implementation.
>> Actually, the engine plugins contains all dependencies but the uimaj plugins.
>>
>> Should I create an additional ("binary") README file, which mentions where to
>> find the jars of the additional dependencies?
>>
>> I personally would wait until someone conplains about it.
> What is the purpose of the binary convenience assembly? If not obvious, is some
> section in the textmarker book needed to explain how to set this up and make use
> of it?
You had a good point in your mail "Suggestion to add a binary zip/tar
distributable": A distribution for users that do not use maven or
eclipse, but want to use the AE or the example project. Thus, the
distribution contains, for example, the example project and the engine
plugin, which can be used to run the AE if you have uima in your classpath.
I have refrained from including everything textmarker needs to be
applied because this would also include uimaj, but maybe it is
reasonable to include only the other dependencies. In a scenario like
"download the UIMA Java framework and then the UIMA TextMarker dist",
the "uima-textmarker.jar" (which should be renamed to
textmarker-core.jar!) would still be not very useful since the other
dependencies are not included. On the other hand, the engine plugin
should do the job, even if using an eclipse bundle is not a very nice
solution.
The documentation contains no information about setting up projects in a
normal java environment right now, but focuses on the language and the
workbench. Maybe I am a bit naive, but I thought that the targeted users
already know what needs to be done to set up a java/uima project (e.g.,
adding the libs to your classpath). Such a description should also cover
how to include textmarker in maven-based projects.
I would add this kind of information rather to a webpage than to the
documentation, which remind me that something should be done about the
web-presence of textmarker.
I see five options to proceed:
1. remove the binary assembly from the release
2. keep it as it is right now
3. keep it as it is, but add a description somewhere how to set up java
projects
4. extend it by adding the other dependencies (e.g., antlr) and add a
note about downloading the UIMA Java framework
5. extend it by adding everything including uimaj
I prefer the former options (especially 2.) and would improve the usage
of textmarker in other scenarios in the following releases :-)
Peter
> -Marshall
>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jörn
>>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/26/2013 8:52 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 26.02.2013 14:33, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> On 2/26/2013 6:16 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>> On 02/26/2013 10:29 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>> I think I have to reread the howtos. I thought the License/Notice files only
>>>> have to cover the stuff in the binaries. If antlr needs to be covered, what
>>>> about the htmlparser?
>>> That is correct, you must only mention artifacts which are redistributed.
>>> If the anltr or htmlparser jar is not included in the binary distribution you
>>> should not mention them.
>> +1.
>>
>> The reason I thought you needed to include the Antlr things was because in the
>> JAR's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES file, antlr things (and, yes, HTML Parser things,
>> too) are listed.
>>
>> I believe this is because the POM specifies these as dependencies. But I see
>> they are not included (embedded) in the JAR. But I guess the JAR has calls out
>> to ANTLR and HTML Parser APIs.
>>
>> Is this JAR (which is the only non-Eclipse plugin JAR in the binary zip/tar, I
>> think), intended to be used in a non-Eclipse setup?
>>
>> Since I found this JAR in the "convenience" binary assembly, I presume there is
>> some intent that people who download this and unzip it want to be able to run
>> something. The normal convention for "convenience" binaries is to include
>> dependent JARs in a lib/ directory, or provide some install information that
>> tells the user what they need to do to complete an install of the binary. But I
>> don't see Jars for these included in the convenience binary assembly.
>>
>> So, I'm probably just confused as to the purpose of the binary assembly - what
>> the expectation is that a user would do with this... I thought it was for
>> non-Eclipse, non- workbench uses. I took a quick look in the textmarker book to
>> see if this packaging was described and had install / use instructions but
>> didn't see this (but maybe I missed it).
>>
>> So - bottom line - the Antlr and HTML parser license/notice do not have to be
>> included in this JAR (because these artifacts are not included with the JAR).
>> Since the JAR has dependencies on these, if it is intended to be used in a
>> non-Eclipse environment, then a convenience binary should include these JARs or
>> tell the user how to get them, I think.
>
> Yes. I did not include the jars of the dependencies (antlr) in the binary
> distribution because then I probably should also include the complete uimaj
> release since textmarker won't do anything without the uimaj implementation.
> Actually, the engine plugins contains all dependencies but the uimaj plugins.
>
> Should I create an additional ("binary") README file, which mentions where to
> find the jars of the additional dependencies?
>
> I personally would wait until someone conplains about it.
What is the purpose of the binary convenience assembly? If not obvious, is some
section in the textmarker book needed to explain how to set this up and make use
of it?
-Marshall
>
> Peter
>
>
>> -Marshall
>>
>>
>>> Jörn
>>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 26.02.2013 14:33, Marshall Schor wrote:
> On 2/26/2013 6:16 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>> On 02/26/2013 10:29 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> I think I have to reread the howtos. I thought the License/Notice files only
>>> have to cover the stuff in the binaries. If antlr needs to be covered, what
>>> about the htmlparser?
>> That is correct, you must only mention artifacts which are redistributed.
>> If the anltr or htmlparser jar is not included in the binary distribution you
>> should not mention them.
> +1.
>
> The reason I thought you needed to include the Antlr things was because in the
> JAR's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES file, antlr things (and, yes, HTML Parser things,
> too) are listed.
>
> I believe this is because the POM specifies these as dependencies. But I see
> they are not included (embedded) in the JAR. But I guess the JAR has calls out
> to ANTLR and HTML Parser APIs.
>
> Is this JAR (which is the only non-Eclipse plugin JAR in the binary zip/tar, I
> think), intended to be used in a non-Eclipse setup?
>
> Since I found this JAR in the "convenience" binary assembly, I presume there is
> some intent that people who download this and unzip it want to be able to run
> something. The normal convention for "convenience" binaries is to include
> dependent JARs in a lib/ directory, or provide some install information that
> tells the user what they need to do to complete an install of the binary. But I
> don't see Jars for these included in the convenience binary assembly.
>
> So, I'm probably just confused as to the purpose of the binary assembly - what
> the expectation is that a user would do with this... I thought it was for
> non-Eclipse, non- workbench uses. I took a quick look in the textmarker book to
> see if this packaging was described and had install / use instructions but
> didn't see this (but maybe I missed it).
>
> So - bottom line - the Antlr and HTML parser license/notice do not have to be
> included in this JAR (because these artifacts are not included with the JAR).
> Since the JAR has dependencies on these, if it is intended to be used in a
> non-Eclipse environment, then a convenience binary should include these JARs or
> tell the user how to get them, I think.
Yes. I did not include the jars of the dependencies (antlr) in the
binary distribution because then I probably should also include the
complete uimaj release since textmarker won't do anything without the
uimaj implementation. Actually, the engine plugins contains all
dependencies but the uimaj plugins.
Should I create an additional ("binary") README file, which mentions
where to find the jars of the additional dependencies?
I personally would wait until someone conplains about it.
Peter
> -Marshall
>
>
>> Jörn
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/26/2013 6:16 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 10:29 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> I think I have to reread the howtos. I thought the License/Notice files only
>> have to cover the stuff in the binaries. If antlr needs to be covered, what
>> about the htmlparser?
>
> That is correct, you must only mention artifacts which are redistributed.
> If the anltr or htmlparser jar is not included in the binary distribution you
> should not mention them.
+1.
The reason I thought you needed to include the Antlr things was because in the
JAR's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES file, antlr things (and, yes, HTML Parser things,
too) are listed.
I believe this is because the POM specifies these as dependencies. But I see
they are not included (embedded) in the JAR. But I guess the JAR has calls out
to ANTLR and HTML Parser APIs.
Is this JAR (which is the only non-Eclipse plugin JAR in the binary zip/tar, I
think), intended to be used in a non-Eclipse setup?
Since I found this JAR in the "convenience" binary assembly, I presume there is
some intent that people who download this and unzip it want to be able to run
something. The normal convention for "convenience" binaries is to include
dependent JARs in a lib/ directory, or provide some install information that
tells the user what they need to do to complete an install of the binary. But I
don't see Jars for these included in the convenience binary assembly.
So, I'm probably just confused as to the purpose of the binary assembly - what
the expectation is that a user would do with this... I thought it was for
non-Eclipse, non- workbench uses. I took a quick look in the textmarker book to
see if this packaging was described and had install / use instructions but
didn't see this (but maybe I missed it).
So - bottom line - the Antlr and HTML parser license/notice do not have to be
included in this JAR (because these artifacts are not included with the JAR).
Since the JAR has dependencies on these, if it is intended to be used in a
non-Eclipse environment, then a convenience binary should include these JARs or
tell the user how to get them, I think.
-Marshall
>
> Jörn
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
On 02/26/2013 10:29 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> I think I have to reread the howtos. I thought the License/Notice
> files only have to cover the stuff in the binaries. If antlr needs to
> be covered, what about the htmlparser?
That is correct, you must only mention artifacts which are redistributed.
If the anltr or htmlparser jar is not included in the binary
distribution you should not mention them.
Jörn
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 25.02.2013 18:26, Marshall Schor wrote:
> The Jar that is built for the textmarker-core project has in its POM a
> dependency on Antlr.
>
> The License/Notice for the Jar for this is missing the part for Antlr.
I think I have to reread the howtos. I thought the License/Notice files
only have to cover the stuff in the binaries. If antlr needs to be
covered, what about the htmlparser?
Peter
> Rest of Jar license/notice things look OK.
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 2/18/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the 6th release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-242/
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6
>>
>>
>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-update-site
>>
>>
>> Archive with all sources:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>
>>
>> Binary distributions:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/
>>
>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>> They can also be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>
>> Documentation (pdf file):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> This RC includes recently resolved issues, e.g., the Eclipse 4.2 support.
>>
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
The Jar that is built for the textmarker-core project has in its POM a
dependency on Antlr.
The License/Notice for the Jar for this is missing the part for Antlr.
Rest of Jar license/notice things look OK.
-Marshall
On 2/18/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the 6th release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-242/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6
>
>
> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
> textmarker-2.0.0:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-update-site
>
>
> Archive with all sources:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>
>
> Binary distributions:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/
>
> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
> They can also be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
>
>
> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>
> Documentation (pdf file):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>
>
>
> This RC includes recently resolved issues, e.g., the Eclipse 4.2 support.
>
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Other than the two issues noted above, the RC looks pretty good.
I compared the SVN tag vs the source-release - looks OK.
I built from the source-release, after clearing my local .m2 repo of previous
textmarker artifacts - OK.
I checked the licenses/notices in a bunch of places (found previously reported
issue).
I unzipped/untarred the binary artifact and compared them - OK
I did a cursory MD5/SHA1 check on a few things - OK
I installed the Eclipse features using the update site into Eclipse 4.2.1 -
looks OK.
-Marshall
On 2/18/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the 6th release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-242/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6
>
>
> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
> textmarker-2.0.0:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/eclipse-update-site
>
>
> Archive with all sources:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>
>
> Binary distributions:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist/
>
> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
> They can also be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
>
>
> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>
> Documentation (pdf file):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>
>
>
> This RC includes recently resolved issues, e.g., the Eclipse 4.2 support.
>
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Hi,
I'm about to start testing on this version.
-Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/27/2013 4:53 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 26.02.2013 20:29, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> On 2/26/2013 9:02 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> On 26.02.2013 14:49, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2013 8:14 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>> Hmm, I do not remember it exactly, but I think one step was missing. Right now
>>> I deactivated assembly.attach and activated maven-deploy-plugin in the "build
>>> distribution" profile. <snip>
>>> Should I propare a new RC or can we improve that in the next release?
>>>
>> If you choose option (1) (from the other thread about what to do regarding the
>> binary convenience builds) which is to not include these in the release, then of
>> course, the missing asc files don't matter :-)
>>
>> Let me know if you choose option 2 - because the zip and tar.gz files are not
>> identical between dist2/ and dist (they have different MD5 signatures, for
>> instance), I'll need to recheck the "signed" ones.
>
> Yes, I noticed that the signatures changed and, therefore, I recreated the
> assemblies and signed them again in one go.
>
> Let's take option (1). I completely agree with your argument in your last
> mail. The first impression often determines whether a tool is taken into
> consideration at all. Just to explain my hurry a bit: Some time already went
> by since I contributed textmarker and I suppose some people already use the
> system, but there is no official released version yet. Access to the
> documentation and the update site is quite cumbersome for normal users. A
> not-so-perfect release has maybe more advantages than disadvantages, and there
> is still so much work to do that the next release will hopefully happen in six
> months' time.
OK, sounds like a good plan. I'll try to finish checking the remaining
artifacts and vote :-)
-Marshall
>
> Peter
>
>> -Marshall
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 26.02.2013 20:29, Marshall Schor wrote:
> On 2/26/2013 9:02 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> On 26.02.2013 14:49, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2013 8:14 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> <snip>
>> Hmm, I do not remember it exactly, but I think one step was missing. Right now
>> I deactivated assembly.attach and activated maven-deploy-plugin in the "build
>> distribution" profile. <snip>
>> Should I propare a new RC or can we improve that in the next release?
>>
> If you choose option (1) (from the other thread about what to do regarding the
> binary convenience builds) which is to not include these in the release, then of
> course, the missing asc files don't matter :-)
>
> Let me know if you choose option 2 - because the zip and tar.gz files are not
> identical between dist2/ and dist (they have different MD5 signatures, for
> instance), I'll need to recheck the "signed" ones.
Yes, I noticed that the signatures changed and, therefore, I recreated
the assemblies and signed them again in one go.
Let's take option (1). I completely agree with your argument in your
last mail. The first impression often determines whether a tool is taken
into consideration at all. Just to explain my hurry a bit: Some time
already went by since I contributed textmarker and I suppose some people
already use the system, but there is no official released version yet.
Access to the documentation and the update site is quite cumbersome for
normal users. A not-so-perfect release has maybe more advantages than
disadvantages, and there is still so much work to do that the next
release will hopefully happen in six months' time.
Peter
> -Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/26/2013 9:02 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 26.02.2013 14:49, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> On 2/26/2013 8:14 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> <snip>
>
> Hmm, I do not remember it exactly, but I think one step was missing. Right now
> I deactivated assembly.attach and activated maven-deploy-plugin in the "build
> distribution" profile. <snip>
> Should I propare a new RC or can we improve that in the next release?
>
If you choose option (1) (from the other thread about what to do regarding the
binary convenience builds) which is to not include these in the release, then of
course, the missing asc files don't matter :-)
Let me know if you choose option 2 - because the zip and tar.gz files are not
identical between dist2/ and dist (they have different MD5 signatures, for
instance), I'll need to recheck the "signed" ones.
-Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 26.02.2013 14:49, Marshall Schor wrote:
> On 2/26/2013 8:14 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> OK, I found the reason. I have set assembly.attach to false so the assemblies
>> (e.g. source-release) won't be uploaded to the staging repository. With
>> assembly.attach=true, as uimaj uses it I think, the asc files are present in
>> the target folder.
>>
>> May I solve this issue with a workaround, for example, by keeping
>> assembly.attach=false and manually signing the assemblies?
> The other thing that the UIMA parent pom does is to have these assemblies
> "attached", so they get signed, but have the deploy step "skip" deploying them.
> See the profile "build distribution" which is activated if there is a file in
> /src/main/assembly/bin.xml, in the UIMA parent pom.
>
> Would this work for your case?
Hmm, I do not remember it exactly, but I think one step was missing.
Right now I deactivated assembly.attach and activated
maven-deploy-plugin in the "build distribution" profile.
<properties>
<assembly.attach>false</assembly.attach>
</properties>
<profile>
<id>build distribution</id>
<build>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<!-- do not skip maven deployment of this project's
artifacts -->
<artifactId>maven-deploy-plugin</artifactId>
<configuration>
<skip>false</skip>
</configuration>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</build>
</profile>
HOWEVER, I did this before I added the bin.xml and that was probably
also the reason why the source-release was uploaded to the staging
repository. Now, that makes sense :-)
Should I propare a new RC or can we improve that in the next release?
Peter
> -Marshall
>> I prepared two new folders (dist2 and source2), which contain the assemblies
>> built with rc6 and assembly.attach=true.
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist2/
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source2/
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On 26.02.2013 10:26, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> On 25.02.2013 16:37, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>> The binary convenience builds zips/tar.gzs are missing the signatures (.asc).
>>>>
>>>> -Marshall
>>> Hmm... can you give me a hint who schould create them? The gpg call?
>>>
>>> "mvn install -Papache-release" on uimaj creates them, but on textmarker it
>>> doesn't, and I could not yet find the reason.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/26/2013 8:14 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> OK, I found the reason. I have set assembly.attach to false so the assemblies
> (e.g. source-release) won't be uploaded to the staging repository. With
> assembly.attach=true, as uimaj uses it I think, the asc files are present in
> the target folder.
>
> May I solve this issue with a workaround, for example, by keeping
> assembly.attach=false and manually signing the assemblies?
The other thing that the UIMA parent pom does is to have these assemblies
"attached", so they get signed, but have the deploy step "skip" deploying them.
See the profile "build distribution" which is activated if there is a file in
/src/main/assembly/bin.xml, in the UIMA parent pom.
Would this work for your case?
-Marshall
>
> I prepared two new folders (dist2 and source2), which contain the assemblies
> built with rc6 and assembly.attach=true.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist2/
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source2/
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 26.02.2013 10:26, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> On 25.02.2013 16:37, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> The binary convenience builds zips/tar.gzs are missing the signatures (.asc).
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>
>> Hmm... can you give me a hint who schould create them? The gpg call?
>>
>> "mvn install -Papache-release" on uimaj creates them, but on textmarker it
>> doesn't, and I could not yet find the reason.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
OK, I found the reason. I have set assembly.attach to false so the
assemblies (e.g. source-release) won't be uploaded to the staging
repository. With assembly.attach=true, as uimaj uses it I think, the asc
files are present in the target folder.
May I solve this issue with a workaround, for example, by keeping
assembly.attach=false and manually signing the assemblies?
I prepared two new folders (dist2 and source2), which contain the
assemblies built with rc6 and assembly.attach=true.
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/dist2/
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc6/source2/
Peter
On 26.02.2013 10:26, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 25.02.2013 16:37, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The binary convenience builds zips/tar.gzs are missing the signatures
>> (.asc).
>>
>> -Marshall
>
> Hmm... can you give me a hint who schould create them? The gpg call?
>
> "mvn install -Papache-release" on uimaj creates them, but on
> textmarker it doesn't, and I could not yet find the reason.
>
> Peter
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 25.02.2013 16:37, Marshall Schor wrote:
> The binary convenience builds zips/tar.gzs are missing the signatures (.asc).
>
> -Marshall
Hmm... can you give me a hint who schould create them? The gpg call?
"mvn install -Papache-release" on uimaj creates them, but on textmarker
it doesn't, and I could not yet find the reason.
Peter
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC6 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
The binary convenience builds zips/tar.gzs are missing the signatures (.asc).
-Marshall