You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Jaroslaw Cwiklik <cw...@apache.org> on 2016/11/22 18:10:14 UTC

[VOTE] Release UIMA-AS 2.9.0 RC1

Hi,

the UIMA-AS 2.9.0 release candidate 1 is ready for voting.

This version contains the following fixes:
  - Updated to use Activemq 5.14.0
  - Added dependency on UIMA SDK 2.9.0
  - Fixed http based service connectivity
  - Added support for automatic recovery of temp queues after broker
restart.
  - Fixed per CAS Performance Metrics breakdown
  - Fixed per process CPU & RSS reporting
  - Fixed example runtime configurations
  - Fixed error recovery on exception while deserializing a CAS
  - "Pinned" JMX MBeans to a specific deployment to enable orderly cleanup
  - Fixed support of AMQ white listing of packages
  - Added support to disable JMX via a new argument
-Duima.as.enable.jmx=false
  - Fixed dd2spring issues
  - Other Bug fixes

The list of changes in Jira:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%202.9.0AS%20AND%20project%20%3D%20UIMA

The source and binary zip/tars are staged to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uima-as/2.9.0/RC1/

The Maven artifacts are here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1110

The SVN tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uima-as/tags/uima-as-2.9.0/

and for the Eclipse Update Site:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/eclipse-update-site/uima-as/

See http://uima.apache.org/testing-builds.html for suggestions on how to
test
release candidates.

Please vote on release:

[ ] +1 OK to release
[ ] 0   Don't care
[ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...

Thanks

Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA-AS 2.9.0 RC1

Posted by Lou DeGenaro <lo...@gmail.com>.

- OK: on Red Hat Linux downloaded & unzipped uima-as-2.9.0-bin.zip
<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uima-as/2.9.0/RC1/uima-as-2.9.0-bin.zip>
- OK: followed README instructions to
          > setup environment variables
          > adjust examples paths
          > start broker
          > deploy & utilize async service (MeetingDetector)
          > ........Completed 8 documents; 17165 characters
          > Time Elapsed : 2553 ms
- OK: README & Release Notes
- OK: License & Notice
- OK: cursory inspection of Jira Report
- OK: cursory inspection of uima_async_scaleout.html

+1 Approve the release

Lou.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik <cw...@apache.org>
wrote:

> - Signatures (md5, sha1) - OK
>
> - Built from source - OK
>
> - jira-report - OK - the list is not sorted on a Key (JIRA#)
>
> - README & Release Notes- OK
>
> - License & Notice - OK
>
> - UIMA-AS Eclipse plugins - OK
>
> - UIMA-AS Eclipse example runtime configurations - OK
>
> - Example scripts from /bin: startBroker, deployAsyncService,
> runRemoteAsyncAE - OK
>
>
> +1 Approve the release
>
> - jerry
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Burn Lewis <bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But what is the purpose of this test?   Currently it expects the major
> > version numbers to match, and prints a misleading error message if they
> > don't.  Are we sure that UIMA-AS 2.9.0 will work with any V2 UIMA?  Or
> > should the test be for the version of core UIMA that UIMA-AS includes,
> and
> > has been tested with?  Perhaps that would be too restrictive since it may
> > work with older or newer versions, so should we just generate a warning
> if
> > only the major versions match?
> >
> > Burn
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I did find a "small" bug in the code that logs a message when versions
> > > don't match.
> > > Its only effecting logging in this particular case where I chose v
> 3.0.0
> > as
> > > the next
> > > version for UIMA-AS.
> > >
> > > I think the RC1 should not be taken down for this reason. In RC1 both
> > uimaj
> > > and
> > > uima-as are at 2.9.0 and auto generated code (UimaVersion &
> > UimaAsVersion)
> > > are
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > Ultimately its up to you testers to decide if this is critical bug
> > > deserving -1.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ah - OK.  So you're saying, this RC is (possibly) good, and we should
> > go
> > > > ahead
> > > > and test it, etc., and you'll fix the "next" release RC later, right?
> > > >
> > > > -Marshall
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/22/2016 3:57 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote:
> > > > > Marshall, this is caused by me choosing next version to be
> > > 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > > > when doing
> > > > >
> > > > > mvn release:prepare -DautoVersionSubmodules
> > > > >
> > > > > The UIMA-AS code does this check:
> > > > >
> > > > >       if (UimaAsVersion.getMajorVersion() !=
> > > > UimaVersion.getMajorVersion())
> > > > > {
> > > > >
> > > > > I will choose 2.9.1 as the next version when doing RC2 :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Jerry
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> hmmm, the latest Jenkins build is showing 4 test failures?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Marshall
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA-AS 2.9.0 RC1

Posted by Jaroslaw Cwiklik <cw...@apache.org>.

- Signatures (md5, sha1) - OK

- Built from source - OK

- jira-report - OK - the list is not sorted on a Key (JIRA#)

- README & Release Notes- OK

- License & Notice - OK

- UIMA-AS Eclipse plugins - OK

- UIMA-AS Eclipse example runtime configurations - OK

- Example scripts from /bin: startBroker, deployAsyncService,
runRemoteAsyncAE - OK


+1 Approve the release

- jerry

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Burn Lewis <bu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But what is the purpose of this test?   Currently it expects the major
> version numbers to match, and prints a misleading error message if they
> don't.  Are we sure that UIMA-AS 2.9.0 will work with any V2 UIMA?  Or
> should the test be for the version of core UIMA that UIMA-AS includes, and
> has been tested with?  Perhaps that would be too restrictive since it may
> work with older or newer versions, so should we just generate a warning if
> only the major versions match?
>
> Burn
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I did find a "small" bug in the code that logs a message when versions
> > don't match.
> > Its only effecting logging in this particular case where I chose v 3.0.0
> as
> > the next
> > version for UIMA-AS.
> >
> > I think the RC1 should not be taken down for this reason. In RC1 both
> uimaj
> > and
> > uima-as are at 2.9.0 and auto generated code (UimaVersion &
> UimaAsVersion)
> > are
> > correct.
> >
> > Ultimately its up to you testers to decide if this is critical bug
> > deserving -1.
> >
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah - OK.  So you're saying, this RC is (possibly) good, and we should
> go
> > > ahead
> > > and test it, etc., and you'll fix the "next" release RC later, right?
> > >
> > > -Marshall
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/22/2016 3:57 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote:
> > > > Marshall, this is caused by me choosing next version to be
> > 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > > when doing
> > > >
> > > > mvn release:prepare -DautoVersionSubmodules
> > > >
> > > > The UIMA-AS code does this check:
> > > >
> > > >       if (UimaAsVersion.getMajorVersion() !=
> > > UimaVersion.getMajorVersion())
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > I will choose 2.9.1 as the next version when doing RC2 :)
> > > >
> > > > Jerry
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> hmmm, the latest Jenkins build is showing 4 test failures?
> > > >>
> > > >> -Marshall
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA-AS 2.9.0 RC1

Posted by Burn Lewis <bu...@gmail.com>.

But what is the purpose of this test?   Currently it expects the major
version numbers to match, and prints a misleading error message if they
don't.  Are we sure that UIMA-AS 2.9.0 will work with any V2 UIMA?  Or
should the test be for the version of core UIMA that UIMA-AS includes, and
has been tested with?  Perhaps that would be too restrictive since it may
work with older or newer versions, so should we just generate a warning if
only the major versions match?

Burn


On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I did find a "small" bug in the code that logs a message when versions
> don't match.
> Its only effecting logging in this particular case where I chose v 3.0.0 as
> the next
> version for UIMA-AS.
>
> I think the RC1 should not be taken down for this reason. In RC1 both uimaj
> and
> uima-as are at 2.9.0 and auto generated code (UimaVersion & UimaAsVersion)
> are
> correct.
>
> Ultimately its up to you testers to decide if this is critical bug
> deserving -1.
>
>
> Jerry
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah - OK.  So you're saying, this RC is (possibly) good, and we should go
> > ahead
> > and test it, etc., and you'll fix the "next" release RC later, right?
> >
> > -Marshall
> >
> >
> > On 11/22/2016 3:57 PM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote:
> > > Marshall, this is caused by me choosing next version to be
> 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > when doing
> > >
> > > mvn release:prepare -DautoVersionSubmodules
> > >
> > > The UIMA-AS code does this check:
> > >
> > >       if (UimaAsVersion.getMajorVersion() !=
> > UimaVersion.getMajorVersion())
> > > {
> > >
> > > I will choose 2.9.1 as the next version when doing RC2 :)
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> hmmm, the latest Jenkins build is showing 4 test failures?
> > >>
> > >> -Marshall
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>