You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> on 2023/03/01 07:32:14 UTC
Re: UIMA-CPP update
Hi Pablo,
have you been able yet to check if you already have an ICLA on file?
The 2023 Q1 board report for the UIMA project is due next week. I noted
in the draft that the UIMA C++ maintainer role is in the process of being
transferred. The report is due next week Wednesday. Do you think we might
be able to complete the transfer until then?
What we would need:
* ICLA
* Establishment of committer role in the project and associated permissions
in the ASF infrastructure
Looking forward to your response!
Cheers,
-- Richard
Re: UIMA-CPP update
Posted by Pablo Duboue <pa...@gmail.com>.
Hi!
I have some great news, but I'll send them in a longer email.
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 9:26 AM Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On 10. Apr 2023, at 10:32, Pablo Duboue <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Last but not least, I have been working on my fork [8]. I see most
> > commits have JIRA issues associated with them. When the time is ready
> > I make a pull request from my project? What would you suggest?
>
> I would say best work directly on the official repo instead of working on
> your own branch. Activity is best visible when performed on the main repo.
>
Very good point. It turns out I was missing registering with the gitbox and
just got access to the repo.
> We do not use JIRA anymore but have switched to using GitHub issues
> exclusively.
>
This is great news!
> The uimacpp repo does not seem to have issues enabled atm because it was
> scheduled for going out of business. However, you can enable those by
> setting
> the `github/features/issues` key in the `.asf.yaml` file. See here
>
> https://github.com/apache/uima-uimaj/blob/main/.asf.yaml
Yes, thanks for that. I have enabled it now.
> As for things like timelines and such - I usually work without those ;)
> I do work as work comes in and every once in a while, I do a release.
> If you wish to do release planning, I'd say that's completely up to you.
>
Very sane approach.
P
Re: UIMA-CPP update
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Hi,
> On 10. Apr 2023, at 10:32, Pablo Duboue <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Last but not least, I have been working on my fork [8]. I see most
> commits have JIRA issues associated with them. When the time is ready
> I make a pull request from my project? What would you suggest?
I would say best work directly on the official repo instead of working on your own branch. Activity is best visible when performed on the main repo.
We do not use JIRA anymore but have switched to using GitHub issues exclusively.
The uimacpp repo does not seem to have issues enabled atm because it was
scheduled for going out of business. However, you can enable those by setting
the `github/features/issues` key in the `.asf.yaml` file. See here
https://github.com/apache/uima-uimaj/blob/main/.asf.yaml
As for things like timelines and such - I usually work without those ;)
I do work as work comes in and every once in a while, I do a release.
If you wish to do release planning, I'd say that's completely up to you.
Cheers,
-- Richard
Re: UIMA-CPP update
Posted by Pablo Duboue <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 11:47 AM Richard Eckart de Castilho
<re...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Pablo,
>
> how are things going? Are there any blockers you might need help with?
Hello!
All is good. Too good actually (since last time we talked I started 3
new contracts, trying to see if I can make one of them somewhat
related to UIMA-CPP).
Yes, there are a number of things that'd be good to discuss here:
* The main new work I have done is to write a pkg-config file for
UIMA-CPP that is fed from automake (more on this below).
* I looked at the existing documentation, the README.4bin [1] file
says that only linux is supported (the exact wording is "MacOS and
Windows versions are delayed pending user requests"). If that is the
case, we are much closer to making a release and I can reuse that
wording on the README.md.
* Went through the bug reports [2], most of them relate to either the
MacOS version or the framework failing to compile on newer systems
(feel free to assign the bugs to me or let me know if I can do that
myself and I'll figure out JIRA a bit). Or relate to UIMA-AS which
we're not working on.
* JIRA and the code in the main branch point to a 3.0.0 release. I
have scaled that back to a 2.5.0 release. I'm concerned users will be
confused as being on par with UIMA3.
* The Release Notes [3] contain the following bit:
>> Installing UIMACPP SDK as a system-wide shared library is discouraged since we do not
>> have support for parallel versions. The include directory does not have version number and
>> there cannot be multiple versions of executables runAECpp and deployCppService.
As I'm working on getting UIMA-CPP to build with system dependencies,
this is a good moment to talk about the changes to the world since
UIMA CPP came to be:
Most programs these days run on containers. It seems to me that it
makes more sense to ship a UIMA-CPP that will run on a particular
Linux install and/or a base docker image.
That way we ship the UIMA-CPP binary library, include files, etc
installed as system files. There is no longer need for UIMACPP_HOME to
be defined and we can use existing techniques to find dependencies and
command-line arguments (like pkg-config [4]).This allows to do things
like
g++ `pkg-config uima --cflags` -c DaveAnnotator.cpp
This changes the concept of what the SDK _is_, as it is now tied to
different underlying releases of the OS. Maybe we can use github
actions [5] to support a few distros without extra effort. But let's
discuss what other people think and where to take it.
I'm also thinking about how useful this release will be in a world
where UIMA2 has been retired. So I'm thinking about adding a
non-trivial example wrapping the ONNX C++ runtime [6]. That could be
fun (and useful) (and related to some of my current contracts) but
will further delay the release.
For a future release, I really want to work on aggregate AEs support.
There was an earlier comment when discussing the retirement of
UIMA-CPP in that regard [7] and it has stayed with me. But that'd be
too much for this release.
There is a bit of busy work ahead cleaning up the existing
documentation files. That also needs to be factored in for a timeline
for the release.
Last but not least, I have been working on my fork [8]. I see most
commits have JIRA issues associated with them. When the time is ready
I make a pull request from my project? What would you suggest?
P
[1] https://github.com/apache/uima-uimacpp/blob/main/README.4bin
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-6175?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20component%20%3D%20%22C%2B%2B%20Framework%22
[3] https://github.com/apache/uima-uimacpp/blob/main/RELEASE_NOTES.html
(yes, that is a MS Word HTML file, I'll change it to markdown for the
release.)
[4] https://people.freedesktop.org/~dbn/pkg-config-guide.html
[5] https://docs.github.com/en/actions
[6] https://onnxruntime.ai/docs/build/inferencing.html#supported-architectures-and-build-environments
[7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/f1r3sghgn2oqhvzz27y26zg6j3olv8qq
[8] https://github.com/DrDub/uima-uimacpp
Re: UIMA-CPP update
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Hi Pablo,
how are things going? Are there any blockers you might need help with?
Cheers,
-- Richard
Re: UIMA-CPP update
Posted by Pablo Duboue <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 9:49 PM Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> > On 1. Mar 2023, at 23:06, Pablo Duboue <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ICLA and CCLA submitted.
>
> Great. I believe we should get notified about the arrival of the ICLA
> assuming that you mentioned "UIMA" in the "notify project" line of the
> ICLA.
>
All good, I did include UIMA and I got an email that they acknowledge
receipt of it. Things are moving.
P
Re: UIMA-CPP update
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
> On 1. Mar 2023, at 23:06, Pablo Duboue <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ICLA and CCLA submitted.
Great. I believe we should get notified about the arrival of the ICLA
assuming that you mentioned "UIMA" in the "notify project" line of the
ICLA.
Cheers,
-- Richard
Re: UIMA-CPP update
Posted by Pablo Duboue <pa...@gmail.com>.
ICLA and CCLA submitted.
Looking at https://infra.apache.org/new-committers-guide.html
P
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:46 AM Pablo Duboue <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:32 PM Richard Eckart de Castilho <
> rec@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Pablo,
>>
>
> Hi!
>
> I am sorry, I have been teaching this month and was hosed. Thanks so much
> for the ping.
>
> have you been able yet to check if you already have an ICLA on file?
>
>
> I believe I filed one with Marshall, but let's do it again just to make
> sure. I'm employed by my own company so a CCLA wouldn't be needed but
> filing one might be good in case I sell my company.
>
>
>> The 2023 Q1 board report for the UIMA project is due next week. I noted
>> in the draft that the UIMA C++ maintainer role is in the process of being
>> transferred. The report is due next week Wednesday. Do you think we might
>> be able to complete the transfer until then?
>>
>
> Yes, I have the time to make it happen. I'll look at the ICLA link and
> follow up with it.
>
>
>> What we would need:
>>
>> * ICLA
>> * Establishment of committer role in the project and associated
>> permissions
>> in the ASF infrastructure
>>
>> Looking forward to your response!
>>
>
> Let's do it. Thanks again!
>
> P
>
>
Re: UIMA-CPP update
Posted by Pablo Duboue <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:32 PM Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Pablo,
>
Hi!
I am sorry, I have been teaching this month and was hosed. Thanks so much
for the ping.
have you been able yet to check if you already have an ICLA on file?
I believe I filed one with Marshall, but let's do it again just to make
sure. I'm employed by my own company so a CCLA wouldn't be needed but
filing one might be good in case I sell my company.
> The 2023 Q1 board report for the UIMA project is due next week. I noted
> in the draft that the UIMA C++ maintainer role is in the process of being
> transferred. The report is due next week Wednesday. Do you think we might
> be able to complete the transfer until then?
>
Yes, I have the time to make it happen. I'll look at the ICLA link and
follow up with it.
> What we would need:
>
> * ICLA
> * Establishment of committer role in the project and associated permissions
> in the ASF infrastructure
>
> Looking forward to your response!
>
Let's do it. Thanks again!
P