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 2018/11/05 16:01:06 UTC

[VOTE] uimaj-2.10.3 rc2

Hi,

uimaj-2.10.3 rc2 is posted and ready for voting.

The issues fixed are here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/UIMA/versions/12342083

Major changes are:
-----------------
The minimum Java version was changed from 7 to 8.
The code and the build was adjusted to work ok using both Java 8 and Java 11.
The class loading when using the UIMA Class Loader was modified to include using
the Thread's Context Class Loader (if set). Fix included in rc2 to make it behave
in a backwards compatible fashion.
Fixed some edge case performance issues were fixed.
Fixed PEAR installation to no longer lock files.
Pear Specifier parameters now passed to the wrapped Analysis Engine.
Implemented a destroy() method for ResourceManager which closes its UIMAClassLoader.

The source and binary tar/zips are here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimaj/2.10.3-rc2/artifacts/

The eclipse update subsite is here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimaj/2.10.3-rc2/uima/

The maven staging repo is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1203/

SVN tag: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimaj/tags/uimaj-2.10.3/

Known issue: It appears the Eclipse update site "publish" utility adds .sha1 and .md5 signatures; this might be needed by the Eclipse install-software facility, so I didn't remove them.

Built using the latest maven (version 3.6.0), and the latest uima-wide parent
pom (version 12).
Built using Java 8.

Please vote on release:

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

Thanks.

-Marshall

Re: [VOTE] uimaj-2.10.3 rc2

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

Re: [VOTE] uimaj-2.10.3 rc2

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

+1.  I think in my horizon, users have (by now) migrated to Java 8 (if for
nothing else, for security updates). -Marshall

On 11/6/2018 5:42 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> I believe the type of communities I'm mostly dealing with wouldn't have a problem
> with the change. Within your horizon, you probably have more users on legacy systems.
> So if you also believe the effect is negligible, so be it. If we are wrong, we can
> always do a 2.10.4 back with Java 7 compatibility level.
>
> -- Richard
>
> P.S.: So... does that mean we can now start using Java 8 language features in v2 code? :)
>
>> On 6. Nov 2018, at 22:51, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure anything really requires Java 8.  I could probably easily put it
>> back to Java 7.  I think I bumped it up when I was trying to get things to build
>> under Java 11.
>>
>> I guess I just thought that by now, no one will be using Java 7, since it's been
>> out of maintenance for a while.  (Oracle ceased public availability of security
>> fixes and upgrades for Java 7 as of April 2015).
>>
>> Because of this, I thought that it would not be a major change for most users -
>> I think they wouldn't notice; so in practical terms, an unnoticed change might
>> not warrant a bump to 2.11  :-).
>>
>> If you feel strongly, I'll redo the release without changing the target to java
>> 8 (leaving it at 7), but I think it would be work for no real-world benefit.
>>
>> -Marshall
>

Re: [VOTE] uimaj-2.10.3 rc2

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

I believe the type of communities I'm mostly dealing with wouldn't have a problem
with the change. Within your horizon, you probably have more users on legacy systems.
So if you also believe the effect is negligible, so be it. If we are wrong, we can
always do a 2.10.4 back with Java 7 compatibility level.

-- Richard

P.S.: So... does that mean we can now start using Java 8 language features in v2 code? :)

> On 6. Nov 2018, at 22:51, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure anything really requires Java 8.  I could probably easily put it
> back to Java 7.  I think I bumped it up when I was trying to get things to build
> under Java 11.
> 
> I guess I just thought that by now, no one will be using Java 7, since it's been
> out of maintenance for a while.  (Oracle ceased public availability of security
> fixes and upgrades for Java 7 as of April 2015).
> 
> Because of this, I thought that it would not be a major change for most users -
> I think they wouldn't notice; so in practical terms, an unnoticed change might
> not warrant a bump to 2.11  :-).
> 
> If you feel strongly, I'll redo the release without changing the target to java
> 8 (leaving it at 7), but I think it would be work for no real-world benefit.
> 
> -Marshall

Re: [VOTE] uimaj-2.10.3 rc2

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

I'm not sure anything really requires Java 8.  I could probably easily put it
back to Java 7.  I think I bumped it up when I was trying to get things to build
under Java 11.

I guess I just thought that by now, no one will be using Java 7, since it's been
out of maintenance for a while.  (Oracle ceased public availability of security
fixes and upgrades for Java 7 as of April 2015).

Because of this, I thought that it would not be a major change for most users -
I think they wouldn't notice; so in practical terms, an unnoticed change might
not warrant a bump to 2.11  :-).

If you feel strongly, I'll redo the release without changing the target to java
8 (leaving it at 7), but I think it would be work for no real-world benefit.

-Marshall

On 11/6/2018 4:31 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> On 5. Nov 2018, at 17:01, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>> The minimum Java version was changed from 7 to 8. 
> IMHO that should warrant a 2.11.0 release instead of a 2.10.3. It is quite a major change for a simple bugfix-level release.
>
> -- Richard

Re: [VOTE] uimaj-2.10.3 rc2

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

On 5. Nov 2018, at 17:01, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> 
> The minimum Java version was changed from 7 to 8. 

IMHO that should warrant a 2.11.0 release instead of a 2.10.3. It is quite a major change for a simple bugfix-level release.

-- Richard

Re: [VOTE] uimaj-2.10.3 rc2

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

- Spot checked signatures - OK
- Checked README, LICENSE, NOTICE, RELEASE_NOTES.html - OK
- Build from source using Java 8 - OK
- Ran documentAnalyzer - OK
- Build trunk level uima-as - OK
- Ran runRemoteAsyncAE - OK
- Installed uima-core.jar from uima-2.10.3 into ducc runtime and run a job
- OK

[x] +1 OK to release

Jerry Cwiklik

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:12 AM Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>
wrote:

> built svn-tag - OK
> built source-release - OK
> built ruta trunk with rc - OK
> tested update site in latest eclipse - OK
> spot checked sigs - OK
>
>
> [x] +1 OK to release
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> Am 05.11.2018 um 17:01 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> > Hi,
> >
> > uimaj-2.10.3 rc2 is posted and ready for voting.
> >
> > The issues fixed are here:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/UIMA/versions/12342083
> >
> > Major changes are:
> > -----------------
> > The minimum Java version was changed from 7 to 8.
> > The code and the build was adjusted to work ok using both Java 8 and
> Java 11.
> > The class loading when using the UIMA Class Loader was modified to
> include using
> > the Thread's Context Class Loader (if set).  Fix included in rc2 to make
> it behave
> > in a backwards compatible fashion.
> > Fixed some edge case performance issues were fixed.
> > Fixed PEAR installation to no longer lock files.
> > Pear Specifier parameters now passed to the wrapped Analysis Engine.
> > Implemented a destroy() method for ResourceManager which closes its
> UIMAClassLoader.
> >
> > The source and binary tar/zips are here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimaj/2.10.3-rc2/artifacts/
> >
> > The eclipse update subsite is here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimaj/2.10.3-rc2/uima/
> >
> > The maven staging repo is here:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1203/
> >
> > SVN tag: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimaj/tags/uimaj-2.10.3/
> >
> > Known issue: It appears the Eclipse update site "publish" utility adds
> .sha1 and .md5 signatures; this might be needed by the Eclipse
> install-software facility, so I didn't remove them.
> >
> > Built using the latest maven (version 3.6.0), and the latest uima-wide
> parent
> > pom (version 12).
> > Built using Java 8.
> >
> > Please vote on release:
> >
> > [ ] +1 OK to release
> > [ ] 0   Don't care
> > [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -Marshall
> >
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Klügl
> R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning
>
> Averbis GmbH
> Tennenbacher Str. 11
> 79106 Freiburg
> Germany
>
> Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
> Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
> Email: peter.kluegl@averbis.com
> Web: https://averbis.com
>
> Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
> Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
> Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó
>
>

Re: [VOTE] uimaj-2.10.3 rc2

Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.

built svn-tag - OK
built source-release - OK
built ruta trunk with rc - OK
tested update site in latest eclipse - OK
spot checked sigs - OK


[x] +1 OK to release


Peter


Am 05.11.2018 um 17:01 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> Hi,
>
> uimaj-2.10.3 rc2 is posted and ready for voting.
>
> The issues fixed are here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/UIMA/versions/12342083
>
> Major changes are:
> -----------------
> The minimum Java version was changed from 7 to 8. 
> The code and the build was adjusted to work ok using both Java 8 and Java 11.
> The class loading when using the UIMA Class Loader was modified to include using
> the Thread's Context Class Loader (if set).  Fix included in rc2 to make it behave
> in a backwards compatible fashion.
> Fixed some edge case performance issues were fixed.
> Fixed PEAR installation to no longer lock files.
> Pear Specifier parameters now passed to the wrapped Analysis Engine.
> Implemented a destroy() method for ResourceManager which closes its UIMAClassLoader.
>
> The source and binary tar/zips are here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimaj/2.10.3-rc2/artifacts/
>
> The eclipse update subsite is here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimaj/2.10.3-rc2/uima/
>
> The maven staging repo is here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1203/
>
> SVN tag: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimaj/tags/uimaj-2.10.3/
>
> Known issue: It appears the Eclipse update site "publish" utility adds .sha1 and .md5 signatures; this might be needed by the Eclipse install-software facility, so I didn't remove them.
>
> Built using the latest maven (version 3.6.0), and the latest uima-wide parent
> pom (version 12).
> Built using Java 8.
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0   Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Marshall
>

-- 
Dr. Peter Klügl
R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning

Averbis GmbH
Tennenbacher Str. 11
79106 Freiburg
Germany

Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
Email: peter.kluegl@averbis.com
Web: https://averbis.com

Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó

Re: [VOTE] uimaj-2.10.3 rc2

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

signatures OK
(using Java 8)
ran document analyzer from bin package, viewed results- OK
installed into eclipse 490 - ran configurator, made type system, ran JCasGen - OK
in Eclipse - imported examples folder from bin distr, ran documentAnalyzer,
viewed results- OK
compare source-release with tag - OK
 build from source - OK
no change to license/notices vs 2.10.2
api-change-reports: OK
issues-fixed report: OK

spot check licenses in staging repo: ok

Note: It appears the Eclipse update site "publish" utility adds .sha1 and .md5
signatures; this might be needed by the Eclipse install-software facility, so I
didn't remove them.

Note: artifacts put in staging repo have .sha1 and md5 checksums added, probably
by the "deploy" step?  

At this point, I think this is pending resolution of various rules in the Apache
repo installation; I'm not planning to fix this (I think a fix would need to be
a manual process, and it might cause some failure further upstream.)

The artifacts in dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev ... do not have the sha1 and md5
checksums, but they do have the sha512 checksum "signed" by the gpg one (due to
pending rule fix in Apache repo installation).

[X] +1 OK to release

-Marshall