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 2015/02/27 20:02:23 UTC
Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release UIMA SDK 2.7.0 rc7
A user reported an issue - see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4267.
This is an older problem - it occurs in 2.6.0 as well as 2.7.0. It probably
hasn't been reported before because it only manifests itself for fairly large
use cases (more than 6 million items in the map).
The fix is pretty small, but it's a blocker for this user's (and of course,
other potentially "large" users') use; so I'm reluctantly concluding that it's
worth rolling back the release, doing the fix, and doing rc8 (a record, I think
:-) ).
-Marshall
On 2/19/2015 10:10 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Here's the next release candidate for the UIMAJ SDK, rc7.
>
> RC7 fixes the bug in snapshot iterators over empty snapshots, plus one other
> obscure case issue (UIMA 4250).
>
> Verses 2.6.0, this version has lots of changes. These are summarized in the
> README and RELEASE_NOTES. The list of changes in Jira:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.7.0SDK%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>
> The source and binary zip/tars and the Eclipse update site are staged to
> http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/uimaj-2.7.0-rc7
>
> The Maven artifacts are here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1048
>
> The SVN tags are here:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimaj/tags/uimaj-2.7.0/
>
> and for the Eclipse Update Site:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimaj/tags/uimaj-eclipse-update-site-2.7.0/
>
> See http://uima.apache.org/testing-builds.html for suggestions on how to test
> release candidates.
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Marshall
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release UIMA SDK 2.7.0 rc7
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I thought about this, and feel it's better to just keep this as 2.7.0.
I do agree that the release votes can't by themselves, do great QA - that has to
come from
our processes and JUnit tests, and early adopter testing, where possible.
-Marshall
On 2/27/2015 2:46 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> I think ther have been some quite significant changes at the lowest levels that
> deserve extensive testing. The release votes are unable to provide this kind of
> quality assurance.
>
> Maybe it might even be worth to do a 2.7.0-beta-1?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
>
> On 27.02.2015, at 20:02, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> A user reported an issue - see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4267.
>> This is an older problem - it occurs in 2.6.0 as well as 2.7.0. It probably
>> hasn't been reported before because it only manifests itself for fairly large
>> use cases (more than 6 million items in the map).
>>
>> The fix is pretty small, but it's a blocker for this user's (and of course,
>> other potentially "large" users') use; so I'm reluctantly concluding that it's
>> worth rolling back the release, doing the fix, and doing rc8 (a record, I think
>> :-) ).
>>
>>
>> -Marshall
>
>
Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release UIMA SDK 2.7.0 rc7
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
I think ther have been some quite significant changes at the lowest levels that
deserve extensive testing. The release votes are unable to provide this kind of
quality assurance.
Maybe it might even be worth to do a 2.7.0-beta-1?
Cheers,
-- Richard
On 27.02.2015, at 20:02, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> A user reported an issue - see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4267.
> This is an older problem - it occurs in 2.6.0 as well as 2.7.0. It probably
> hasn't been reported before because it only manifests itself for fairly large
> use cases (more than 6 million items in the map).
>
> The fix is pretty small, but it's a blocker for this user's (and of course,
> other potentially "large" users') use; so I'm reluctantly concluding that it's
> worth rolling back the release, doing the fix, and doing rc8 (a record, I think
> :-) ).
>
>
> -Marshall