You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> on 2010/01/13 16:52:55 UTC
[VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Hi everyone,
The UIMA community has voted on and approved the release of Apache UIMA
2.3.0, consisting of
- base UIMA
- the UIMA-AS add-on to the base (incorporating ActiveMQ and adding
Asynchronous Scaleout capability
- UIMACPP - the C++ support
- UIMA-Addons - a subset of components from the UIMA Sandbox
The vote was +1 from all committers and 1 mentor; no other votes were
cast. We now request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release.
Podling vote thread: http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
Release artifacts:
http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-RC9/
(includes RAT reports)
SVN root nodes:
base UIMA:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/uimaj/tags/uimaj-2.3.0/uimaj-2.3.0-09
UIMA-AS:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/uima-as/tags/uima-as-2.3.0/uima-as-2.3.0-09
UIMA-Addons:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/sandbox/tags/sandbox-2.3.0/sandbox-2.3.0-09
UIMACPP:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/uimacpp/tags/uimacpp-2.3.0-09
UIMA-AS continues to be registered as a 5D002 export artifact (due to
including ActiveMQ) - and no other components are currently required to
be so designated; see http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/
The source distributions are built with scripts, and differ somewhat
from the SVN source trees. The various distributions are built using
the Maven assembly plugin; the scripts for build the source distribution
are found here:
base UIMA: uimaj-distr/src/main/assembly/src.xml
UIMA-AS: uima-as-distr/src/main/assembly/src.xml
UIMA-Addons: SandboxDistr/annotator-package/src/main/assembly/src.xml
The UIMACPP source package is built in a different manner for Windows
and *nix packaging; some of the make configuration is pre-done for each
of these packagings and included in the source distribution. The
scripts for building the source are in
buildSrcTree.cmd (Windows) and
buildSrcTree.sh (*nix)
In addition to the source bundles, this release includes (as before)
binary downloads for direct use by users; these include html/pdf
versions of documentation and javadocs.
The builds (except for UIMACPP) have been changed to use the Maven RAT
(Release Audit Tool) plugin. The POMs for the 3 distribution projects
(uimaj-distr, uima-as-distr, and SandboxDistr/annotationPackage)
document the list of exceptions for the RAT tool (mostly things like
generated files or test data).
KEYS:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/uimaj/trunk/uimaj-distr/src/main/readme/KEYS
The release is signed by Marshall Schor except for UIMACPP which is
signed by Edward Epstein.
The signing key of Marshall Schor has been updated to the higher
strength following http://www.apache.org/dev/key-transition.html.
Please cast your vote!
Thanks. -Marshall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
[RESULT] [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
The vote passes:
This vote has been open for 13 days. There are 3 +1's from IPMC
members, and no other votes.
+1 Jukka Zitting
+1 Ant Elder
+1 Jean T. Anderson
Thanks to everyone who took the time to review and vote on this.
-Marshall
Marshall Schor wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The UIMA community has voted on and approved the release of Apache UIMA
> 2.3.0, consisting of
> - base UIMA
> - the UIMA-AS add-on to the base (incorporating ActiveMQ and adding
> Asynchronous Scaleout capability
> - UIMACPP - the C++ support
> - UIMA-Addons - a subset of components from the UIMA Sandbox
>
> The vote was +1 from all committers and 1 mentor; no other votes were
> cast. We now request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this release.
>
>
> Podling vote thread: http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
> Release artifacts:
> http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-RC9/
> (includes RAT reports)
>
> SVN root nodes:
> base UIMA:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/uimaj/tags/uimaj-2.3.0/uimaj-2.3.0-09
> UIMA-AS:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/uima-as/tags/uima-as-2.3.0/uima-as-2.3.0-09
> UIMA-Addons:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/sandbox/tags/sandbox-2.3.0/sandbox-2.3.0-09
> UIMACPP:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/uimacpp/tags/uimacpp-2.3.0-09
>
> UIMA-AS continues to be registered as a 5D002 export artifact (due to
> including ActiveMQ) - and no other components are currently required to
> be so designated; see http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/
>
> The source distributions are built with scripts, and differ somewhat
> from the SVN source trees. The various distributions are built using
> the Maven assembly plugin; the scripts for build the source distribution
> are found here:
>
> base UIMA: uimaj-distr/src/main/assembly/src.xml
> UIMA-AS: uima-as-distr/src/main/assembly/src.xml
> UIMA-Addons: SandboxDistr/annotator-package/src/main/assembly/src.xml
>
> The UIMACPP source package is built in a different manner for Windows
> and *nix packaging; some of the make configuration is pre-done for each
> of these packagings and included in the source distribution. The
> scripts for building the source are in
> buildSrcTree.cmd (Windows) and
> buildSrcTree.sh (*nix)
>
> In addition to the source bundles, this release includes (as before)
> binary downloads for direct use by users; these include html/pdf
> versions of documentation and javadocs.
>
> The builds (except for UIMACPP) have been changed to use the Maven RAT
> (Release Audit Tool) plugin. The POMs for the 3 distribution projects
> (uimaj-distr, uima-as-distr, and SandboxDistr/annotationPackage)
> document the list of exceptions for the RAT tool (mostly things like
> generated files or test data).
>
> KEYS:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/uimaj/trunk/uimaj-distr/src/main/readme/KEYS
>
> The release is signed by Marshall Schor except for UIMACPP which is
> signed by Edward Epstein.
> The signing key of Marshall Schor has been updated to the higher
> strength following http://www.apache.org/dev/key-transition.html.
>
> Please cast your vote!
>
> Thanks. -Marshall
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> since I reviewed the earliest uima releases I went ahead and reviewed
> this one.
>
> I did not take the time to unpack files and examine them because I was
> convinced by early release rounds that the UIMA project knows how to
> do this reliably.
>
> I did focus on the rat reports that were included and on the email
> thread. --I encountered only one minor confusion: uimacpp did not
> include a rat report, but Marshall's post to the podling vote thread
> mentioned that uimacpp is identical to the previous release. [1]
> Nothing needs to be done here, Marshall, I'm just noting this in case
> any other mentors start reviewing this.
Sorry for the confusion - the Rat report for uimacpp was run manually,
and the reports are included as files in the release candidate on
http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-RC9/uimacpp/
the files are:
uimacpp-bin-linux-report.txt
uimacpp-bin-windows-report.txt
uimacpp-bin64-linux-report.txt
uimacpp-src-linux-report.txt
uimacpp-src-windows-report.txt
>
> based on my review I give this release a +1.
Thanks, Jean! -Marshall
>
> -jean
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
>
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Please cast your vote!
>>>
>>
>> My +1 from uima-dev@ stands here as well.
>>
>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Jukka Zitting
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> Gav... wrote:
>> Having licenses in place for all source files (not generated) and/or
>> exclusions I should think would be a requirement for release approval, I'd
>> prefer others to clarify that though.
>
> I think it's a good practice to have exclusions, but in my opinion, it's
> just one of several methods that can document the exceptions.
Agreed. The important thing is that the policy is being followed, not
the specifics of how that compliance is being verified or documented.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Gav... wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eddie Epstein [mailto:eaepstein@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, 24 January 2010 11:52 PM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
>>
>> Hi, sure.
>> The unapproved licenses for each package are:
>>
>> Linux source - 17 unknown:
>> 7 - regression and sample test data
>> 6 - auto generated files (gnumake and JNI header)
>> 1 - NOTICE file for binary package (with suffix)
>> 1 - README file for binary package (with suffix)
>> 1 - doxygen html template
>> 1 - gdb init file for testing
>>
>> Windows source - 46 unknown:
>> 35 - Microsoft devenv build control files (vcproj and sln)
>> 7 - regression and sample test data
>> 1 - NOTICE file for binary package (with suffix)
>> 1 - README file for binary package (with suffix)
>> 1 - doxygen html template
>> 1 - JNI auto gen header
>>
>> Linux 32-bit and 64-bit binary - 377 unknown for each
>> 259 - doxygen output files
>> 108 - ICU redistributable headers
>> 7 - xercesc redistributable headers
>> 1 - APR redistributable header
>> 1 - sample test data
>> 1 - gdb init file
>>
>> Windows binary - 462 unknown
>> 333 - doxygen output files
>> 104 - ICU redistributable headers
>> 13 - Microsoft devenv build files (vcporj and sln)
>> 10 - xercesc redistributable headers
>> 1 - APR redistributable header
>> 1 - sample test data
>>
>>
>
> Although it doesn’t do any harm, performing RAT reports on generated files
> (currently)
> is not strictly necessary.
>
> Look at:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-license-head
> ers
>
> which states:
>
> "All source capable of copyright should contain license header. Easiest way
> to comply is to ensure that every human readable file has the header. Note
> that source includes not just the source code compiled into the final
> product but also all other resources such as style sheets, test code and
> resources, build files and documentation source. When in doubt, add a
> header."
>
> and...
>
> "The issue of licenses on generated documentation is a little controversial.
> Copyright may not subsist in a document which is generated by an
> transformation from an original. In which case, the license header may be
> unnecessary. License headers should always be present in the original. Where
> it is reasonable to do so, the templates should also add the license header
> to the generated documents."
>
> So, what you have done is akin to the second paragraph. What you have not
> done is produce a RAT report on your original untouched source files in svn.
> This is akin to paragraph one above and is what you should really be
> providing. Not only that, the results of the RAT reports should end up being
> 'zero' unknown/unapproved files. This can always be achieved, by either
> adding the headers as necessary, or by excluding the relevant files from the
> report. RAT is capable of excluding files by using an exclusion file kept in
> svn which RAT can then use. An example of 'zero' being achieved is at
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/log4php/rat-output.html.
>
> I took the liberty of using Buildbot to produce RAT reports for your trunk,
> uimacpp-2.3.0-09 tag and uima-2.3.0 release branch, results were:
>
> Trunk - 51 Unknown Licenses -
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/uima/rat-output.html
>
> uimacpp-2.3.0-09 Tag - 51 Unknown Licenses -
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/uima/tags/uimacpp-2.3.0-09/rat-output.html
>
> uimacpp-2.3.0 Branch - 51 Unknown Licenses -
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/uima/branches/uimacpp-2.3.0/rat-output.html
>
> All the same results which shows consistency which is good.
>
> Going through those source files we have:
>
> .buildbot-sourcedata - created by buildbot and can be excluded.
> NOTICE.* - can be excluded
> README.* - can be excluded
> createRelease.txt - can be excluded
> docs/doxyheader.html - optional
> **/*.vcproj - Don't see why these can't have headers
> **.*.asc - can be excluded
>
> So, just by applying either headers or exclusion list for the above will
> reduce the list to just a couple. Take a look at
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/forrest/trunk/etc/rat-avoid.txt for a good
> example of an exclusion file that RAT can use. If you create one, let me
> know and I'll reconfigure the buildbot to use it, or let you know how you
> can use it in your own manual runs.
>
> Note that your current four RAT reports can be brought down to 'zero' just
> by creating an exclusion list as you are indicating that all of the those
> files are to be excluded.
>
> After saying all of the above, I am not voting on the release, just
> providing RAT report advice and haven’t the time currently to check the rest
> of the release.
> Having licenses in place for all source files (not generated) and/or
> exclusions I should think would be a requirement for release approval, I'd
> prefer others to clarify that though.
>
I think it's a good practice to have exclusions, but in my opinion, it's
just one of several methods that can document the exceptions. In our
past releases, for instance, we have used comments added directly to the
Rat report for this (perhaps this was before RAT had (or we knew about)
exclusion capability.
Unless someone objects, I plan to close this vote in another 24 hours or
so... It's been open for 12 days now, and we have 3 binding ipmc +1
votes, so far (Thank You ! ! to all who took the time to review and vote).
-Marshall
> Good luck.
>
> Gav...
>
>
>
>> Thanks for digging into the UIMA release!
>> Eddie
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eddie Epstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jean,
>>>>
>>>> Just noting that uimacpp does include rat reports, just poorly named
>>>>
>> :(
>>
>>>> In
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-
>>>>
>> RC9/uimacpp/
>>
>>>> are 5 xxx-report.txt files that correspond to the 5 uimacpp download
>>>> packages
>>>> in the release.
>>>>
>>>> And although not identical to the previous release, uimacpp has only
>>>>
>> minor
>>
>>>> changes to existing components.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Eddie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification, Eddie!
>>>
>>> Since you're indicating that there were some minor changes, I went
>>>
>> ahead and
>>
>>> took a look at the uimacpp rat reports. All files have "Unknown
>>>
>> Licenses"
>>
>>> reported, and some files have hundreds. Since uimacpp was already
>>>
>> approved
>>
>>> for release before, I'm sure that all is in order, but could you just
>>> refresh our memory about those unknown license messages? I bet they
>>>
>> might
>>
>>> have to do with auto-generated files, but it would be good to
>>>
>> confirm.
>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> -jean
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jean T. Anderson
>>>>
>> <jt...@bristowhill.com>
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> since I reviewed the earliest uima releases I went ahead and
>>>>>
>> reviewed
>>
>>>>> this
>>>>> one.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not take the time to unpack files and examine them because I
>>>>>
>> was
>>
>>>>> convinced by early release rounds that the UIMA project knows how
>>>>>
>> to do
>>
>>>>> this
>>>>> reliably.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did focus on the rat reports that were included and on the email
>>>>> thread.
>>>>> --I encountered only one minor confusion: uimacpp did not include a
>>>>>
>> rat
>>
>>>>> report, but Marshall's post to the podling vote thread mentioned
>>>>>
>> that
>>
>>>>> uimacpp is identical to the previous release. [1] Nothing needs to
>>>>>
>> be
>>
>>>>> done
>>>>> here, Marshall, I'm just noting this in case any other mentors
>>>>>
>> start
>>
>>>>> reviewing this.
>>>>>
>>>>> based on my review I give this release a +1.
>>>>>
>>>>> -jean
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
>>>>>
>>>>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>
>>>>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please cast your vote!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> My +1 from uima-dev@ stands here as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so
>>>>>>
>> it's
>>
>>>>>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
>>>>>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BR,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jukka Zitting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>> ---
>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>> --
>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>> -
>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by "Gav..." <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eddie Epstein [mailto:eaepstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, 24 January 2010 11:52 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
>
> Hi, sure.
> The unapproved licenses for each package are:
>
> Linux source - 17 unknown:
> 7 - regression and sample test data
> 6 - auto generated files (gnumake and JNI header)
> 1 - NOTICE file for binary package (with suffix)
> 1 - README file for binary package (with suffix)
> 1 - doxygen html template
> 1 - gdb init file for testing
>
> Windows source - 46 unknown:
> 35 - Microsoft devenv build control files (vcproj and sln)
> 7 - regression and sample test data
> 1 - NOTICE file for binary package (with suffix)
> 1 - README file for binary package (with suffix)
> 1 - doxygen html template
> 1 - JNI auto gen header
>
> Linux 32-bit and 64-bit binary - 377 unknown for each
> 259 - doxygen output files
> 108 - ICU redistributable headers
> 7 - xercesc redistributable headers
> 1 - APR redistributable header
> 1 - sample test data
> 1 - gdb init file
>
> Windows binary - 462 unknown
> 333 - doxygen output files
> 104 - ICU redistributable headers
> 13 - Microsoft devenv build files (vcporj and sln)
> 10 - xercesc redistributable headers
> 1 - APR redistributable header
> 1 - sample test data
>
Although it doesnt do any harm, performing RAT reports on generated files
(currently)
is not strictly necessary.
Look at:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-license-head
ers
which states:
"All source capable of copyright should contain license header. Easiest way
to comply is to ensure that every human readable file has the header. Note
that source includes not just the source code compiled into the final
product but also all other resources such as style sheets, test code and
resources, build files and documentation source. When in doubt, add a
header."
and...
"The issue of licenses on generated documentation is a little controversial.
Copyright may not subsist in a document which is generated by an
transformation from an original. In which case, the license header may be
unnecessary. License headers should always be present in the original. Where
it is reasonable to do so, the templates should also add the license header
to the generated documents."
So, what you have done is akin to the second paragraph. What you have not
done is produce a RAT report on your original untouched source files in svn.
This is akin to paragraph one above and is what you should really be
providing. Not only that, the results of the RAT reports should end up being
'zero' unknown/unapproved files. This can always be achieved, by either
adding the headers as necessary, or by excluding the relevant files from the
report. RAT is capable of excluding files by using an exclusion file kept in
svn which RAT can then use. An example of 'zero' being achieved is at
http://ci.apache.org/projects/log4php/rat-output.html.
I took the liberty of using Buildbot to produce RAT reports for your trunk,
uimacpp-2.3.0-09 tag and uima-2.3.0 release branch, results were:
Trunk - 51 Unknown Licenses -
http://ci.apache.org/projects/uima/rat-output.html
uimacpp-2.3.0-09 Tag - 51 Unknown Licenses -
http://ci.apache.org/projects/uima/tags/uimacpp-2.3.0-09/rat-output.html
uimacpp-2.3.0 Branch - 51 Unknown Licenses -
http://ci.apache.org/projects/uima/branches/uimacpp-2.3.0/rat-output.html
All the same results which shows consistency which is good.
Going through those source files we have:
.buildbot-sourcedata - created by buildbot and can be excluded.
NOTICE.* - can be excluded
README.* - can be excluded
createRelease.txt - can be excluded
docs/doxyheader.html - optional
**/*.vcproj - Don't see why these can't have headers
**.*.asc - can be excluded
So, just by applying either headers or exclusion list for the above will
reduce the list to just a couple. Take a look at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/forrest/trunk/etc/rat-avoid.txt for a good
example of an exclusion file that RAT can use. If you create one, let me
know and I'll reconfigure the buildbot to use it, or let you know how you
can use it in your own manual runs.
Note that your current four RAT reports can be brought down to 'zero' just
by creating an exclusion list as you are indicating that all of the those
files are to be excluded.
After saying all of the above, I am not voting on the release, just
providing RAT report advice and havent the time currently to check the rest
of the release.
Having licenses in place for all source files (not generated) and/or
exclusions I should think would be a requirement for release approval, I'd
prefer others to clarify that though.
Good luck.
Gav...
> Thanks for digging into the UIMA release!
> Eddie
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>
> wrote:
> > Eddie Epstein wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Jean,
> >>
> >> Just noting that uimacpp does include rat reports, just poorly named
> :(
> >>
> >> In
> >> http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-
> RC9/uimacpp/
> >> are 5 xxx-report.txt files that correspond to the 5 uimacpp download
> >> packages
> >> in the release.
> >>
> >> And although not identical to the previous release, uimacpp has only
> minor
> >> changes to existing components.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Eddie
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification, Eddie!
> >
> > Since you're indicating that there were some minor changes, I went
> ahead and
> > took a look at the uimacpp rat reports. All files have "Unknown
> Licenses"
> > reported, and some files have hundreds. Since uimacpp was already
> approved
> > for release before, I'm sure that all is in order, but could you just
> > refresh our memory about those unknown license messages? I bet they
> might
> > have to do with auto-generated files, but it would be good to
> confirm.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > -jean
> >
> >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jean T. Anderson
> <jt...@bristowhill.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> since I reviewed the earliest uima releases I went ahead and
> reviewed
> >>> this
> >>> one.
> >>>
> >>> I did not take the time to unpack files and examine them because I
> was
> >>> convinced by early release rounds that the UIMA project knows how
> to do
> >>> this
> >>> reliably.
> >>>
> >>> I did focus on the rat reports that were included and on the email
> >>> thread.
> >>> --I encountered only one minor confusion: uimacpp did not include a
> rat
> >>> report, but Marshall's post to the podling vote thread mentioned
> that
> >>> uimacpp is identical to the previous release. [1] Nothing needs to
> be
> >>> done
> >>> here, Marshall, I'm just noting this in case any other mentors
> start
> >>> reviewing this.
> >>>
> >>> based on my review I give this release a +1.
> >>>
> >>> -jean
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
> >>>
> >>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please cast your vote!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My +1 from uima-dev@ stands here as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so
> it's
> >>>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
> >>>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> BR,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jukka Zitting
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> Hi, sure.
> The unapproved licenses for each package are:
>
> Linux source - 17 unknown:
> 7 - regression and sample test data
> 6 - auto generated files (gnumake and JNI header)
> 1 - NOTICE file for binary package (with suffix)
> 1 - README file for binary package (with suffix)
> 1 - doxygen html template
> 1 - gdb init file for testing
>
> Windows source - 46 unknown:
> 35 - Microsoft devenv build control files (vcproj and sln)
> 7 - regression and sample test data
> 1 - NOTICE file for binary package (with suffix)
> 1 - README file for binary package (with suffix)
> 1 - doxygen html template
> 1 - JNI auto gen header
>
> Linux 32-bit and 64-bit binary - 377 unknown for each
> 259 - doxygen output files
> 108 - ICU redistributable headers
> 7 - xercesc redistributable headers
> 1 - APR redistributable header
> 1 - sample test data
> 1 - gdb init file
>
> Windows binary - 462 unknown
> 333 - doxygen output files
> 104 - ICU redistributable headers
> 13 - Microsoft devenv build files (vcporj and sln)
> 10 - xercesc redistributable headers
> 1 - APR redistributable header
> 1 - sample test data
>
> Thanks for digging into the UIMA release!
> Eddie
>
>
Thanks for chasing those all down, Eddie.
I don't spot any problems, so my +1 stands.
-jean
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
>
>> Eddie Epstein wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jean,
>>>
>>> Just noting that uimacpp does include rat reports, just poorly named :(
>>>
>>> In
>>> http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-RC9/uimacpp/
>>> are 5 xxx-report.txt files that correspond to the 5 uimacpp download
>>> packages
>>> in the release.
>>>
>>> And although not identical to the previous release, uimacpp has only minor
>>> changes to existing components.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for the clarification, Eddie!
>>
>> Since you're indicating that there were some minor changes, I went ahead and
>> took a look at the uimacpp rat reports. All files have "Unknown Licenses"
>> reported, and some files have hundreds. Since uimacpp was already approved
>> for release before, I'm sure that all is in order, but could you just
>> refresh our memory about those unknown license messages? I bet they might
>> have to do with auto-generated files, but it would be good to confirm.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> -jean
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> since I reviewed the earliest uima releases I went ahead and reviewed
>>>> this
>>>> one.
>>>>
>>>> I did not take the time to unpack files and examine them because I was
>>>> convinced by early release rounds that the UIMA project knows how to do
>>>> this
>>>> reliably.
>>>>
>>>> I did focus on the rat reports that were included and on the email
>>>> thread.
>>>> --I encountered only one minor confusion: uimacpp did not include a rat
>>>> report, but Marshall's post to the podling vote thread mentioned that
>>>> uimacpp is identical to the previous release. [1] Nothing needs to be
>>>> done
>>>> here, Marshall, I'm just noting this in case any other mentors start
>>>> reviewing this.
>>>>
>>>> based on my review I give this release a +1.
>>>>
>>>> -jean
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
>>>>
>>>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please cast your vote!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> My +1 from uima-dev@ stands here as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
>>>>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
>>>>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> BR,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jukka Zitting
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
Hi, sure.
The unapproved licenses for each package are:
Linux source - 17 unknown:
7 - regression and sample test data
6 - auto generated files (gnumake and JNI header)
1 - NOTICE file for binary package (with suffix)
1 - README file for binary package (with suffix)
1 - doxygen html template
1 - gdb init file for testing
Windows source - 46 unknown:
35 - Microsoft devenv build control files (vcproj and sln)
7 - regression and sample test data
1 - NOTICE file for binary package (with suffix)
1 - README file for binary package (with suffix)
1 - doxygen html template
1 - JNI auto gen header
Linux 32-bit and 64-bit binary - 377 unknown for each
259 - doxygen output files
108 - ICU redistributable headers
7 - xercesc redistributable headers
1 - APR redistributable header
1 - sample test data
1 - gdb init file
Windows binary - 462 unknown
333 - doxygen output files
104 - ICU redistributable headers
13 - Microsoft devenv build files (vcporj and sln)
10 - xercesc redistributable headers
1 - APR redistributable header
1 - sample test data
Thanks for digging into the UIMA release!
Eddie
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> Eddie Epstein wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> Just noting that uimacpp does include rat reports, just poorly named :(
>>
>> In
>> http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-RC9/uimacpp/
>> are 5 xxx-report.txt files that correspond to the 5 uimacpp download
>> packages
>> in the release.
>>
>> And although not identical to the previous release, uimacpp has only minor
>> changes to existing components.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Eddie
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for the clarification, Eddie!
>
> Since you're indicating that there were some minor changes, I went ahead and
> took a look at the uimacpp rat reports. All files have "Unknown Licenses"
> reported, and some files have hundreds. Since uimacpp was already approved
> for release before, I'm sure that all is in order, but could you just
> refresh our memory about those unknown license messages? I bet they might
> have to do with auto-generated files, but it would be good to confirm.
>
> thanks,
>
> -jean
>
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> since I reviewed the earliest uima releases I went ahead and reviewed
>>> this
>>> one.
>>>
>>> I did not take the time to unpack files and examine them because I was
>>> convinced by early release rounds that the UIMA project knows how to do
>>> this
>>> reliably.
>>>
>>> I did focus on the rat reports that were included and on the email
>>> thread.
>>> --I encountered only one minor confusion: uimacpp did not include a rat
>>> report, but Marshall's post to the podling vote thread mentioned that
>>> uimacpp is identical to the previous release. [1] Nothing needs to be
>>> done
>>> here, Marshall, I'm just noting this in case any other mentors start
>>> reviewing this.
>>>
>>> based on my review I give this release a +1.
>>>
>>> -jean
>>>
>>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
>>>
>>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please cast your vote!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My +1 from uima-dev@ stands here as well.
>>>>
>>>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
>>>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
>>>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
>>>>
>>>> BR,
>>>>
>>>> Jukka Zitting
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> Just noting that uimacpp does include rat reports, just poorly named :(
>
> In http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-RC9/uimacpp/
> are 5 xxx-report.txt files that correspond to the 5 uimacpp download packages
> in the release.
>
> And although not identical to the previous release, uimacpp has only minor
> changes to existing components.
>
> Regards,
> Eddie
>
>
Thanks for the clarification, Eddie!
Since you're indicating that there were some minor changes, I went ahead
and took a look at the uimacpp rat reports. All files have "Unknown
Licenses" reported, and some files have hundreds. Since uimacpp was
already approved for release before, I'm sure that all is in order, but
could you just refresh our memory about those unknown license messages?
I bet they might have to do with auto-generated files, but it would be
good to confirm.
thanks,
-jean
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
>
>> since I reviewed the earliest uima releases I went ahead and reviewed this
>> one.
>>
>> I did not take the time to unpack files and examine them because I was
>> convinced by early release rounds that the UIMA project knows how to do this
>> reliably.
>>
>> I did focus on the rat reports that were included and on the email thread.
>> --I encountered only one minor confusion: uimacpp did not include a rat
>> report, but Marshall's post to the podling vote thread mentioned that
>> uimacpp is identical to the previous release. [1] Nothing needs to be done
>> here, Marshall, I'm just noting this in case any other mentors start
>> reviewing this.
>>
>> based on my review I give this release a +1.
>>
>> -jean
>>
>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
>>
>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please cast your vote!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> My +1 from uima-dev@ stands here as well.
>>>
>>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
>>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
>>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Jukka Zitting
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jean,
Just noting that uimacpp does include rat reports, just poorly named :(
In http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-RC9/uimacpp/
are 5 xxx-report.txt files that correspond to the 5 uimacpp download packages
in the release.
And although not identical to the previous release, uimacpp has only minor
changes to existing components.
Regards,
Eddie
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> since I reviewed the earliest uima releases I went ahead and reviewed this
> one.
>
> I did not take the time to unpack files and examine them because I was
> convinced by early release rounds that the UIMA project knows how to do this
> reliably.
>
> I did focus on the rat reports that were included and on the email thread.
> --I encountered only one minor confusion: uimacpp did not include a rat
> report, but Marshall's post to the podling vote thread mentioned that
> uimacpp is identical to the previous release. [1] Nothing needs to be done
> here, Marshall, I'm just noting this in case any other mentors start
> reviewing this.
>
> based on my review I give this release a +1.
>
> -jean
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
>
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Please cast your vote!
>>>
>>
>> My +1 from uima-dev@ stands here as well.
>>
>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Jukka Zitting
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
since I reviewed the earliest uima releases I went ahead and reviewed
this one.
I did not take the time to unpack files and examine them because I was
convinced by early release rounds that the UIMA project knows how to do
this reliably.
I did focus on the rat reports that were included and on the email
thread. --I encountered only one minor confusion: uimacpp did not
include a rat report, but Marshall's post to the podling vote thread
mentioned that uimacpp is identical to the previous release. [1] Nothing
needs to be done here, Marshall, I'm just noting this in case any other
mentors start reviewing this.
based on my review I give this release a +1.
-jean
[1] http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> Please cast your vote!
>>
>
> My +1 from uima-dev@ stands here as well.
>
> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Thanks! I appreciate your taking the time to do the review. -Marshall
ant elder wrote:
> It is quite huge. I haven't looked at every artifact but the ones i
> did all the licensing etc looked ok and it looks like they understand
> what they're doing. The copyright in some NOTICE files is "Copyright
> 2006, 2007" which could probably do with being updated, though others
> are 2009 and from the discussion on legal-discuss a while back i'm not
> sure thats a blocking issue so +1 from me.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
>>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
>>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
>>>
>> Anyone?
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Jukka Zitting
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Bernd Fondermann
<be...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 21:08, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is quite huge. I haven't looked at every artifact but the ones i
>> did all the licensing etc looked ok and it looks like they understand
>> what they're doing. The copyright in some NOTICE files is "Copyright
>> 2006, 2007" which could probably do with being updated, though others
>> are 2009 and from the discussion on legal-discuss a while back i'm not
>> sure thats a blocking issue so +1 from me.
>
> AFAIR, copyright notices in file headers only need to be brought
> up-to-date (literally) when a file is actually changed.
That is also what I recall, although it can be convenient to update in bulk...
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 21:08, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is quite huge. I haven't looked at every artifact but the ones i
> did all the licensing etc looked ok and it looks like they understand
> what they're doing. The copyright in some NOTICE files is "Copyright
> 2006, 2007" which could probably do with being updated, though others
> are 2009 and from the discussion on legal-discuss a while back i'm not
> sure thats a blocking issue so +1 from me.
AFAIR, copyright notices in file headers only need to be brought
up-to-date (literally) when a file is actually changed.
Bernd
>
> ...ant
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
>>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
>>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
>>
>> Anyone?
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Jukka Zitting
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
It is quite huge. I haven't looked at every artifact but the ones i
did all the licensing etc looked ok and it looks like they understand
what they're doing. The copyright in some NOTICE files is "Copyright
2006, 2007" which could probably do with being updated, though others
are 2009 and from the discussion on legal-discuss a while back i'm not
sure thats a blocking issue so +1 from me.
...ant
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
>
> Anyone?
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
Anyone?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> Please cast your vote!
My +1 from uima-dev@ stands here as well.
Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so it's
a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org