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 2016/03/19 19:56:16 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Hi all,
this is a bugfix and minor feature release. Particularly noteworthy are:
- many bug fixes related to classloading in environments with a context classloader
- new FSUtil class with useful methods to get/set FS feature values
- updated dependencies on UIMA SDK and Spring Framework
- use of iteratorWithSnapshot where sensible
Changes to rc1:
- Fixed JIRA issues link in README file
Staging repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1085
SVN tag:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimafit/tags/uimafit-2.2.0
Archive with all sources:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
Overall 33 issues have been resolved for this release.
They can be found in the jira-report.html.
... and here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.2.0uimaFIT%20AND%20resolution%20is%20not%20EMPTY
Please vote on release:
[ ] +1 OK to release
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
Cheers,
-- Richard
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
The signatures and md5/sha1 are ok - checked the bin.tar.gz
Checked license/notice, including bin build, and in Jars. OK
svn compare w/ source-release: OK
issues Fixed: missing 3, but not worth redoing release.
build from sources (windows 7, Java 8) OK - with some javadoc warnings from Java8 lint checking
[X] +1 OK to release
-Marshall Schor
On 3/19/2016 2:56 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a bugfix and minor feature release. Particularly noteworthy are:
>
> - many bug fixes related to classloading in environments with a context classloader
> - new FSUtil class with useful methods to get/set FS feature values
> - updated dependencies on UIMA SDK and Spring Framework
> - use of iteratorWithSnapshot where sensible
>
> Changes to rc1:
> - Fixed JIRA issues link in README file
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1085
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimafit/tags/uimafit-2.2.0
>
> Archive with all sources:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
>
> Overall 33 issues have been resolved for this release.
> They can be found in the jira-report.html.
>
> ... and here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.2.0uimaFIT%20AND%20resolution%20is%20not%20EMPTY
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Yes, you are right! Sorry, I indeed did forget to mention these in the initial mail!
Yes, the binary dist files contain different NOTICE/LICENSE files. The source tarball
has only the Apache License and UIMA notices.
The binary tarballs also contain the aggregated NOTICE/LICENSE from the third-party
JARs that come bundled with it.
Cheers,
-- Richard
> On 28.03.2016, at 20:05, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> That link ends with "...source-release.zip".
>
> I'm referring to the binary.zip, and binary.tar.gz; those are different files,
> with different LICENSE/NOTICES, right?
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 3/28/2016 1:26 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> hm, I think it was in the original vote mail:
>>
>>> Archive with all sources:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
>>
>> ... or I am misunderstanding what you are looking for.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Richard
>>
>>> On 28.03.2016, at 19:19, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> uimaFIT download page shows releasing a bin/tar/zip kind of bundle.
>>>
>>> I see it's still being built - it's in the target/ of the build-from-sources
>>> test that I did.
>>>
>>> I didn't see it listed in the list of things to check in the VOTE email; is it
>>> still planned to be part of the release?
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
That link ends with "...source-release.zip".
I'm referring to the binary.zip, and binary.tar.gz; those are different files,
with different LICENSE/NOTICES, right?
-Marshall
On 3/28/2016 1:26 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Hi,
>
> hm, I think it was in the original vote mail:
>
>> Archive with all sources:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
>
> ... or I am misunderstanding what you are looking for.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
>
>> On 28.03.2016, at 19:19, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>> uimaFIT download page shows releasing a bin/tar/zip kind of bundle.
>>
>> I see it's still being built - it's in the target/ of the build-from-sources
>> test that I did.
>>
>> I didn't see it listed in the list of things to check in the VOTE email; is it
>> still planned to be part of the release?
>>
>> -Marshall
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Hi,
hm, I think it was in the original vote mail:
> Archive with all sources:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
... or I am misunderstanding what you are looking for.
Cheers,
-- Richard
> On 28.03.2016, at 19:19, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> uimaFIT download page shows releasing a bin/tar/zip kind of bundle.
>
> I see it's still being built - it's in the target/ of the build-from-sources
> test that I did.
>
> I didn't see it listed in the list of things to check in the VOTE email; is it
> still planned to be part of the release?
>
> -Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Yes, these are the dist artifacts.
These come from the target folder of the root module.
Best,
-- Richard
> On 28.03.2016, at 19:29, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> I see the bin.tar and .zip and signatures, etc., are in
> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2.
>
> Are these the artifacts that would be copied to the dist.apache.org release
> repos when the vote passes?
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 3/28/2016 1:19 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> uimaFIT download page shows releasing a bin/tar/zip kind of bundle.
>>
>> I see it's still being built - it's in the target/ of the build-from-sources
>> test that I did.
>>
>> I didn't see it listed in the list of things to check in the VOTE email; is it
>> still planned to be part of the release?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I see the bin.tar and .zip and signatures, etc., are in
dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2.
Are these the artifacts that would be copied to the dist.apache.org release
repos when the vote passes?
-Marshall
On 3/28/2016 1:19 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> uimaFIT download page shows releasing a bin/tar/zip kind of bundle.
>
> I see it's still being built - it's in the target/ of the build-from-sources
> test that I did.
>
> I didn't see it listed in the list of things to check in the VOTE email; is it
> still planned to be part of the release?
>
> -Marshall
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
uimaFIT download page shows releasing a bin/tar/zip kind of bundle.
I see it's still being built - it's in the target/ of the build-from-sources
test that I did.
I didn't see it listed in the list of things to check in the VOTE email; is it
still planned to be part of the release?
-Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Ah, looks OK.
I had gone and looked into the Jar, which has the pom inside (no license), and
in the maven central spot for the jar - also has the pom, also, no license.
But, as you point out, it's in the "parent" pom... where I didn't look...
It would be nice to record these little investigations in a specially named file
(e.g. research-licenses.txt or ???) and remind folks who are reviewing where
this is, so we can avoid repeating these inquires :-) in the future.
-Marshall
On 3/28/2016 2:23 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Assuming that I recorded the provenance properly, I got it from here:
>
> http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cjavax.enterprise%7Ccdi-api%7C1.0%7Cjar
>
> (javax.enterprise cdi-api version 1.0.)
>
> The license can e.g. be found in the parent POM:
>
> * http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Corg.jboss.weld%7Cweld-api-parent%7C1.0%7Cpom
>
> See also:
>
> * http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/weld/api/tags/1.0/
> * https://docs.jboss.org/cdi/api/1.0/index.html?javax/enterprise/inject/package-summary.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
>
>> On 28.03.2016, at 20:09, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>> The bin distr files in their NOTICE refer to
>>
>> AnnotationLiteral.java
>>
>> Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
>> File was copied from the javax.enterprise cdi-api version 1.0.
>>
>> I went looking for this, on the web, and found lots of references to it, but I
>> couldn't pin down where you copied it from.
>> There was a post (
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7083408/standalone-version-of-class-annotationliteral/7084532#7084532
>> ) saying an Apache licensed version was available from the Apache Geronimo
>> project - is that where you got it from?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On 3/19/2016 2:56 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is a bugfix and minor feature release. Particularly noteworthy are:
>>>
>>> - many bug fixes related to classloading in environments with a context classloader
>>> - new FSUtil class with useful methods to get/set FS feature values
>>> - updated dependencies on UIMA SDK and Spring Framework
>>> - use of iteratorWithSnapshot where sensible
>>>
>>> Changes to rc1:
>>> - Fixed JIRA issues link in README file
>>>
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1085
>>>
>>> SVN tag:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimafit/tags/uimafit-2.2.0
>>>
>>> Archive with all sources:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
>>>
>>> Overall 33 issues have been resolved for this release.
>>> They can be found in the jira-report.html.
>>>
>>> ... and here:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.2.0uimaFIT%20AND%20resolution%20is%20not%20EMPTY
>>>
>>> Please vote on release:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -- Richard
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Assuming that I recorded the provenance properly, I got it from here:
http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cjavax.enterprise%7Ccdi-api%7C1.0%7Cjar
(javax.enterprise cdi-api version 1.0.)
The license can e.g. be found in the parent POM:
* http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Corg.jboss.weld%7Cweld-api-parent%7C1.0%7Cpom
See also:
* http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/weld/api/tags/1.0/
* https://docs.jboss.org/cdi/api/1.0/index.html?javax/enterprise/inject/package-summary.html
Cheers,
-- Richard
> On 28.03.2016, at 20:09, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> The bin distr files in their NOTICE refer to
>
> AnnotationLiteral.java
>
> Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
> File was copied from the javax.enterprise cdi-api version 1.0.
>
> I went looking for this, on the web, and found lots of references to it, but I
> couldn't pin down where you copied it from.
> There was a post (
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7083408/standalone-version-of-class-annotationliteral/7084532#7084532
> ) saying an Apache licensed version was available from the Apache Geronimo
> project - is that where you got it from?
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 3/19/2016 2:56 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a bugfix and minor feature release. Particularly noteworthy are:
>>
>> - many bug fixes related to classloading in environments with a context classloader
>> - new FSUtil class with useful methods to get/set FS feature values
>> - updated dependencies on UIMA SDK and Spring Framework
>> - use of iteratorWithSnapshot where sensible
>>
>> Changes to rc1:
>> - Fixed JIRA issues link in README file
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1085
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimafit/tags/uimafit-2.2.0
>>
>> Archive with all sources:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
>>
>> Overall 33 issues have been resolved for this release.
>> They can be found in the jira-report.html.
>>
>> ... and here:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.2.0uimaFIT%20AND%20resolution%20is%20not%20EMPTY
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Richard
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
The bin distr files in their NOTICE refer to
AnnotationLiteral.java
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
File was copied from the javax.enterprise cdi-api version 1.0.
I went looking for this, on the web, and found lots of references to it, but I
couldn't pin down where you copied it from.
There was a post (
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7083408/standalone-version-of-class-annotationliteral/7084532#7084532
) saying an Apache licensed version was available from the Apache Geronimo
project - is that where you got it from?
-Marshall
On 3/19/2016 2:56 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a bugfix and minor feature release. Particularly noteworthy are:
>
> - many bug fixes related to classloading in environments with a context classloader
> - new FSUtil class with useful methods to get/set FS feature values
> - updated dependencies on UIMA SDK and Spring Framework
> - use of iteratorWithSnapshot where sensible
>
> Changes to rc1:
> - Fixed JIRA issues link in README file
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1085
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimafit/tags/uimafit-2.2.0
>
> Archive with all sources:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
>
> Overall 33 issues have been resolved for this release.
> They can be found in the jira-report.html.
>
> ... and here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.2.0uimaFIT%20AND%20resolution%20is%20not%20EMPTY
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.
Not critical
Am 31.03.2016 um 00:31 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> I'm leaning toward thinking it isn't critical...
>
> What do others think?
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 3/29/2016 3:52 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Hm, ok good to know. Sorry I didn't notice that before.
>>
>> The question is: is it a critical issue requiring a third RC?
>>
>> -- Richard
>>
>>> On 29.03.2016, at 21:49, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I found the problem.
>>>
>>> It seems jira reporting fails if the "component" field is blank, or doesn't
>>> include uimaFIT.
>>>
>>> I changed these 3 Jiras to include those, and now the issues-fixed report
>>> includes them.
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>> On 3/29/2016 10:33 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> However, I don't see why they are missing.
>>>>
>>>> The Jira version ID is correctly set in the POM to: 12324057
>>>>
>>>> Searching under that ID in Jira yields the missing issues:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12324057
>>>>
>>>> I also just did a local rebuild of the 2.2.0 sources with the release profile activated to regenerate the report. It still does not include the issues.
>>>>
>>>> Did you have such problems in the past?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> -- Richard
>>>>
>>>>> On 29.03.2016, at 16:12, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4867 as a uimaFIT 2.2.0 issue,
>>>>> but don't see it in the issues fixed list?
>>>>>
>>>>> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3869 not in issues fixed
>>>>> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4706
>>>>>
>>>>> -Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
+1 to diff checking - I too have started doing that. It's helpful in
identifying new dependencies or version changes that get introduced.
-Marshall
On 3/31/2016 2:49 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Btw. I feel that in general a more diff-based approach may be good.
> Rechecking the same old boring things over and over again every release
> could be done automatically. E.g. in the last Ruta release, I started
> the review process by actually looking at the list of changed files,
> pom diff, etc.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
>
>> On 31.03.2016, at 08:39, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> So do I. Two of the issues are related to the build. The other
>> is indeed a significant improvement but not a critical issue.
>> Also, the README contains a link to the complete overview on
>> JIRA.
>>
>> On the other hand, it also kind of depends on how intensively
>> an RC re-check is typically being done. E.g. if I do another RC
>> and upload it, does it make sense to check everything from scratch
>> (I usually do that) or is it sufficient to stick mostly to a check
>> of the differences.
>>
>> In case of a "light" check, I think it would be good to have the
>> complete record of issues.
>>
>> -- Richard
>>
>>> On 31.03.2016, at 00:31, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm leaning toward thinking it isn't critical...
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Btw. I feel that in general a more diff-based approach may be good.
Rechecking the same old boring things over and over again every release
could be done automatically. E.g. in the last Ruta release, I started
the review process by actually looking at the list of changed files,
pom diff, etc.
Cheers,
-- Richard
> On 31.03.2016, at 08:39, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> So do I. Two of the issues are related to the build. The other
> is indeed a significant improvement but not a critical issue.
> Also, the README contains a link to the complete overview on
> JIRA.
>
> On the other hand, it also kind of depends on how intensively
> an RC re-check is typically being done. E.g. if I do another RC
> and upload it, does it make sense to check everything from scratch
> (I usually do that) or is it sufficient to stick mostly to a check
> of the differences.
>
> In case of a "light" check, I think it would be good to have the
> complete record of issues.
>
> -- Richard
>
>> On 31.03.2016, at 00:31, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm leaning toward thinking it isn't critical...
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>> -Marshall
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
So do I. Two of the issues are related to the build. The other
is indeed a significant improvement but not a critical issue.
Also, the README contains a link to the complete overview on
JIRA.
On the other hand, it also kind of depends on how intensively
an RC re-check is typically being done. E.g. if I do another RC
and upload it, does it make sense to check everything from scratch
(I usually do that) or is it sufficient to stick mostly to a check
of the differences.
In case of a "light" check, I think it would be good to have the
complete record of issues.
-- Richard
> On 31.03.2016, at 00:31, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> I'm leaning toward thinking it isn't critical...
>
> What do others think?
>
> -Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I'm leaning toward thinking it isn't critical...
What do others think?
-Marshall
On 3/29/2016 3:52 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Hm, ok good to know. Sorry I didn't notice that before.
>
> The question is: is it a critical issue requiring a third RC?
>
> -- Richard
>
>> On 29.03.2016, at 21:49, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think I found the problem.
>>
>> It seems jira reporting fails if the "component" field is blank, or doesn't
>> include uimaFIT.
>>
>> I changed these 3 Jiras to include those, and now the issues-fixed report
>> includes them.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On 3/29/2016 10:33 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> However, I don't see why they are missing.
>>>
>>> The Jira version ID is correctly set in the POM to: 12324057
>>>
>>> Searching under that ID in Jira yields the missing issues:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12324057
>>>
>>> I also just did a local rebuild of the 2.2.0 sources with the release profile activated to regenerate the report. It still does not include the issues.
>>>
>>> Did you have such problems in the past?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> -- Richard
>>>
>>>> On 29.03.2016, at 16:12, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4867 as a uimaFIT 2.2.0 issue,
>>>> but don't see it in the issues fixed list?
>>>>
>>>> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3869 not in issues fixed
>>>> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4706
>>>>
>>>> -Marshall
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Hm, ok good to know. Sorry I didn't notice that before.
The question is: is it a critical issue requiring a third RC?
-- Richard
> On 29.03.2016, at 21:49, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> I think I found the problem.
>
> It seems jira reporting fails if the "component" field is blank, or doesn't
> include uimaFIT.
>
> I changed these 3 Jiras to include those, and now the issues-fixed report
> includes them.
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 3/29/2016 10:33 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Indeed.
>>
>> However, I don't see why they are missing.
>>
>> The Jira version ID is correctly set in the POM to: 12324057
>>
>> Searching under that ID in Jira yields the missing issues:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12324057
>>
>> I also just did a local rebuild of the 2.2.0 sources with the release profile activated to regenerate the report. It still does not include the issues.
>>
>> Did you have such problems in the past?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -- Richard
>>
>>> On 29.03.2016, at 16:12, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4867 as a uimaFIT 2.2.0 issue,
>>> but don't see it in the issues fixed list?
>>>
>>> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3869 not in issues fixed
>>> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4706
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I think I found the problem.
It seems jira reporting fails if the "component" field is blank, or doesn't
include uimaFIT.
I changed these 3 Jiras to include those, and now the issues-fixed report
includes them.
-Marshall
On 3/29/2016 10:33 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Indeed.
>
> However, I don't see why they are missing.
>
> The Jira version ID is correctly set in the POM to: 12324057
>
> Searching under that ID in Jira yields the missing issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12324057
>
> I also just did a local rebuild of the 2.2.0 sources with the release profile activated to regenerate the report. It still does not include the issues.
>
> Did you have such problems in the past?
>
> Best,
>
> -- Richard
>
>> On 29.03.2016, at 16:12, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>> I see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4867 as a uimaFIT 2.2.0 issue,
>> but don't see it in the issues fixed list?
>>
>> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3869 not in issues fixed
>> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4706
>>
>> -Marshall
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 3/29/2016 10:33 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Indeed.
>
> However, I don't see why they are missing.
>
> The Jira version ID is correctly set in the POM to: 12324057
>
> Searching under that ID in Jira yields the missing issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12324057
>
> I also just did a local rebuild of the 2.2.0 sources with the release profile activated to regenerate the report. It still does not include the issues.
>
> Did you have such problems in the past?
No; this seems strange. I'll take a closer look to see if I can see anything...
-Marshall
> Best,
>
> -- Richard
>
>> On 29.03.2016, at 16:12, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>> I see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4867 as a uimaFIT 2.2.0 issue,
>> but don't see it in the issues fixed list?
>>
>> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3869 not in issues fixed
>> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4706
>>
>> -Marshall
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Indeed.
However, I don't see why they are missing.
The Jira version ID is correctly set in the POM to: 12324057
Searching under that ID in Jira yields the missing issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310570&version=12324057
I also just did a local rebuild of the 2.2.0 sources with the release profile activated to regenerate the report. It still does not include the issues.
Did you have such problems in the past?
Best,
-- Richard
> On 29.03.2016, at 16:12, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> I see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4867 as a uimaFIT 2.2.0 issue,
> but don't see it in the issues fixed list?
>
> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3869 not in issues fixed
> also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4706
>
> -Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4867 as a uimaFIT 2.2.0 issue,
but don't see it in the issues fixed list?
also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3869 not in issues fixed
also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4706
-Marshall
[VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
the vote has passed with the following results:
3 (Binding) +1 Richard Eckart de Castilho, Marshall Schor, Peter Klügl
No other votes received.
I will promote the artifacts and wrap up the release (announcements, etc.)
Thanks to all the voters!
-- Richard
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.
built ruta-core with staged artifacts - OK
mvn clean install svn-tag - OK
mvn clean install source-release - OK
compared svn-tag and source-release - OK (whitespace diff and the usual)
checked readme, found no release_notes - OK
spot checked LICENSE and NOTICE - OK
checked asc, md5, sha1 of source-release and bin release - problems on
my local machine, no idea yet why
[X] +1 OK to release
Peter
Am 19.03.2016 um 19:56 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a bugfix and minor feature release. Particularly noteworthy are:
>
> - many bug fixes related to classloading in environments with a context classloader
> - new FSUtil class with useful methods to get/set FS feature values
> - updated dependencies on UIMA SDK and Spring Framework
> - use of iteratorWithSnapshot where sensible
>
> Changes to rc1:
> - Fixed JIRA issues link in README file
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1085
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimafit/tags/uimafit-2.2.0
>
> Archive with all sources:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
>
> Overall 33 issues have been resolved for this release.
> They can be found in the jira-report.html.
>
> ... and here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.2.0uimaFIT%20AND%20resolution%20is%20not%20EMPTY
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.
I just wanted to mention that I solved the language problem for the ruta
build by adding "-Duser.language=en" to the environment variable
"MAVEN_OPTS" of my windows machine.
Best,
Peter
Am 19.03.2016 um 20:08 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
> OK - Compared SVN branch with source ZIP (only the usual suspects)
> OK - Compiling from sources ZIP (empty Maven repo)
> OK - Checked NOTICE and LICENSE files: ok (sources zip NOTICE and LICENSE were updated due to Spring Framework and other dep upgrades)
> OK - Check README
> OK - Check DocBook documentation
> - yes, dates in German, no, still no idea how to fix that :/ Well, actually switching to Asciidoc may help ;)
> OK - jira-report
> - still the problem with ${project.version}... but that's still not on our plate to fix
> OK - check if all issues on version 2.2.0 are resolved
> OK - spot check of (my own) signature on staged artifacts
>
> [X] +1 OK to release
>
> -- Richard
>
>> On 19.03.2016, at 19:56, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a bugfix and minor feature release. Particularly noteworthy are:
>>
>> - many bug fixes related to classloading in environments with a context classloader
>> - new FSUtil class with useful methods to get/set FS feature values
>> - updated dependencies on UIMA SDK and Spring Framework
>> - use of iteratorWithSnapshot where sensible
>>
>> Changes to rc1:
>> - Fixed JIRA issues link in README file
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1085
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimafit/tags/uimafit-2.2.0
>>
>> Archive with all sources:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
>>
>> Overall 33 issues have been resolved for this release.
>> They can be found in the jira-report.html.
>>
>> ... and here:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.2.0uimaFIT%20AND%20resolution%20is%20not%20EMPTY
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Richard
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
OK - Compared SVN branch with source ZIP (only the usual suspects)
OK - Compiling from sources ZIP (empty Maven repo)
OK - Checked NOTICE and LICENSE files: ok (sources zip NOTICE and LICENSE were updated due to Spring Framework and other dep upgrades)
OK - Check README
OK - Check DocBook documentation
- yes, dates in German, no, still no idea how to fix that :/ Well, actually switching to Asciidoc may help ;)
OK - jira-report
- still the problem with ${project.version}... but that's still not on our plate to fix
OK - check if all issues on version 2.2.0 are resolved
OK - spot check of (my own) signature on staged artifacts
[X] +1 OK to release
-- Richard
> On 19.03.2016, at 19:56, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> this is a bugfix and minor feature release. Particularly noteworthy are:
>
> - many bug fixes related to classloading in environments with a context classloader
> - new FSUtil class with useful methods to get/set FS feature values
> - updated dependencies on UIMA SDK and Spring Framework
> - use of iteratorWithSnapshot where sensible
>
> Changes to rc1:
> - Fixed JIRA issues link in README file
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1085
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimafit/tags/uimafit-2.2.0
>
> Archive with all sources:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.2.0-rc2/uimafit-2.2.0-source-release.zip
>
> Overall 33 issues have been resolved for this release.
> They can be found in the jira-report.html.
>
> ... and here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.2.0uimaFIT%20AND%20resolution%20is%20not%20EMPTY
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
The legacy module duplicates the tests from uimaFIT 1.4 (pre Apache).
This is meant to ensure that old uimaFIT-based components can be used
with Apache uimaFIT.
New tests are only go the core module. Updates happen rarely.
Many of the tests are thus duplicated in the two modules.
Die CPE module also duplicates several tests, but runs them against
the CPE instead of the uimaFIT simple pipeline.
-- Richard
> On 23.03.2016, at 22:04, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> Ran build-from-sources, ran to completion OK.
>
> I did notice 2 projects had the same pattern of tests throwing (expected?)
> exceptions; I'm writing about them since (at least in the first instance), the
> same exception is reported multiple times, perhaps something might be broken in
> the test?
>
> Project: core 2.2.0
>
> ViewCreatorAnnotatorTest (No sofaFS with name myView found.) (reported 4
> times in a row)
>
> ViewTextCopierAnnotatorTest ( No sofaFS with name SourceView found.)
>
> Project: Legacy uimaFIT support 2.2.0
>
> ViewCreatorAnnotatorTest (No sofaFS with name myView found.) (reported 4
> times in a row)
>
> ViewTextCopierAnnotatorTest ( No sofaFS with name SourceView found.)
>
> More testing coming... -Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA uimaFIT 2.2.0 RC 2
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Ran build-from-sources, ran to completion OK.
I did notice 2 projects had the same pattern of tests throwing (expected?)
exceptions; I'm writing about them since (at least in the first instance), the
same exception is reported multiple times, perhaps something might be broken in
the test?
Project: core 2.2.0
ViewCreatorAnnotatorTest (No sofaFS with name myView found.) (reported 4
times in a row)
ViewTextCopierAnnotatorTest ( No sofaFS with name SourceView found.)
Project: Legacy uimaFIT support 2.2.0
ViewCreatorAnnotatorTest (No sofaFS with name myView found.) (reported 4
times in a row)
ViewTextCopierAnnotatorTest ( No sofaFS with name SourceView found.)
More testing coming... -Marshall