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 2013/08/01 17:22:54 UTC

I'm thinking it would be good to do a 2.4.2 SDK bug fix release?

I'm thinking it would best for the UIMA users if we were to do a 2.4.2 Java SDK
release soon (in the next week or so?) to fix the 7 issues that popped up when
we got the 2.4.1 SDK out into the community.

WDYT?

The issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.4.2SDK%22%20AND%20project%20%3D%20UIMA

-Marshall

Re: I'm thinking it would be good to do a 2.4.2 SDK bug fix release?

Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.

On 08/13/2013 08:21 PM, Eddie Epstein wrote:
> Hi Thilo,
>
> Are you going to share your crud-list? Enquiring Minds Need To Know!

Hi Eddie,

no.  Since I see no interest in moving UIMA forward in any
non-backward compatible way, I'll save myself the time. My
interest in UIMA is very slight these days, so the initiative
would have to come from somebody else.

--Thilo

Re: I'm thinking it would be good to do a 2.4.2 SDK bug fix release?

Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.

Hi Thilo,

Are you going to share your crud-list? Enquiring Minds Need To Know!

Eddie


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 08/05/2013 04:21 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>
>> Am 05.08.2013 um 16:02 schrieb Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>:
>>
>>  On 8/5/2013 9:22 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks :) I think that UIMA-3141 or rather the discussion is spawned
>>>> may go on for longer. Lets do 2.4.2 without resolving UIMA-3141 first.
>>>>
>>>> Or let take the opportunity and call it 2.5.0 this time? ;)
>>>>
>>> This is a hard choice to balance:
>>>    1) indicating that it is substantially different from the 2.4.0 level
>>> (new
>>> features)
>>>    2) the x.x.0 level usually means the big delta, with more likely bugs
>>> yet to
>>> be found, while
>>>        the x.x.2 level usually means a bug fix (as we've discussed
>>> earlier).
>>>
>>> I think I'm leaning toward 2.4.2, but if others have strong
>>> rationalizations,
>>> for 2.5.0, please reply :-)
>>>
>>
>> For curiosity: what will it take to do a UIMA 3.0.0? Just to get a
>> glimpse at the
>> other end of the spectrum.
>>
>> -- Richard
>>
>>
> Let me know when you're ready to consider a new version that
> throws away some of the old crud.
>
> --Thilo
>
>

Re: I'm thinking it would be good to do a 2.4.2 SDK bug fix release?

Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.

On 08/05/2013 04:21 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Am 05.08.2013 um 16:02 schrieb Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>:
>
>> On 8/5/2013 9:22 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> Thanks :) I think that UIMA-3141 or rather the discussion is spawned
>>> may go on for longer. Lets do 2.4.2 without resolving UIMA-3141 first.
>>>
>>> Or let take the opportunity and call it 2.5.0 this time? ;)
>> This is a hard choice to balance:
>>    1) indicating that it is substantially different from the 2.4.0 level (new
>> features)
>>    2) the x.x.0 level usually means the big delta, with more likely bugs yet to
>> be found, while
>>        the x.x.2 level usually means a bug fix (as we've discussed earlier).
>>
>> I think I'm leaning toward 2.4.2, but if others have strong rationalizations,
>> for 2.5.0, please reply :-)
>
> For curiosity: what will it take to do a UIMA 3.0.0? Just to get a glimpse at the
> other end of the spectrum.
>
> -- Richard
>

Let me know when you're ready to consider a new version that
throws away some of the old crud.

--Thilo