Re: [VOTE][CANCEL] Release Apache UIMA Ruta 2.2.0 RC2

[Martin Toepfer <ma...@uni-wuerzburg.de>]

I agree. The vote for RC2 is canceled; Peter is going to address the 
problems. We plan to provide RC3 as soon as possible. I guess this will 
be within one or two weeks.

Martin


Am 18.02.2014 13:58, schrieb Peter Klügl:
> I know I voted +1, but I wonder if it is reasonable to create a new RC,
> which includes:
> UIMA-3628 Loading scripts/descriptors in Ruta with incorrect paths
> UIMA-3627 Replace old screenshot in Ruta documentation
> UIMA-3569 Allow extensions for complete block constructs in Ruta
> UIMA-3622 Formatter in Ruta editor duplicates declare keywords
> UIMA-3621 Improve license/notice files in Ruta
>
> It's probably better to release something that is cleaner and more stable...
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Am 17.02.2014 10:33, schrieb Peter Klügl:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 15.02.2014 22:51, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>>> Verified signatures
>>> verify signatures / md5 / sha1 in repository - ruta core -OK.  (Got Martin's key
>>> from mit pgp server)
>>> verify signatures for source-release
>>>
>>> The verification says Martin's key is not part of a trust ring - I would
>>> recommend cross-signing your key by those physically near  you :-)
>> Yes, we already talked about that :-)
>>
>>> Checked issues fixed - looks ok
>>>
>>> Did a build from sources - OK
>>>
>>> compared sources / svn tag - OK
>>>
>>> I installed the ruta plugins into a fresh 4.3.1 Eclipse -  OK.  I did this
>>> trick: I first "added" the main UIMA eclipse update site
>>> (http://www.apache.org/dist/uima/eclipse-update-site), but I didn't install
>>> anything.  Then I put in the RUTA site, and left the box checked to have install
>>> contact all the sites when looking for other artifacts; the install process then
>>> contacted the main UIMA site for the plugins it needed - worked like a charm :-)
>>>
>>> I noticed that some but not all of the internal projects within the examples
>>> folder (example-project, extensions-project, TextRulerExample) have their own
>>> license/notice - which can be a maintenance issue - for example, these have a 2013
>>> end date in the Notice part.  Normally, the License/Notice files are put at the
>>> top level of a distribution; I'm not sure why they're here.
>> I will create an issue for the notice/license problems you found.
>>
>> The projects are Ruta projects and are not built with maven. They can be
>> checked out from the scm, and if build, there will be no notice/license
>> file otherwise.
>>
>>
>>> The NOTICE file in many places has duplicate info for creative commons that's
>>> also part of license file.  Normally any information that's already in the
>>> License file should not be also duplicated in the Notices file.  The Notices
>>> file is for things which are not part of the license terms, but need to be
>>> present (such as copyrights).  See
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
>>>
>>> where it says, in part:
>>>      However, elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD
>>> and MIT licenses need not be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those
>>> notices in their original locations.
>> Is it possible that the best practice has changed somehow? I am quite
>> sure that I had to add the notice because of the license.
>>
>> Peter
>>