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 2019/01/12 23:53:32 UTC

[VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi,

I've posted the uimaFIT 3.0.0 release candidate 1.

uimaFIT 3.0.0 is major feature release which makes uimaFIT
compatible with UIMAJ v3. It includes incompatible API changes
as well as new features and bug fixes.

Changes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%203.0.0uimaFIT%20AND%20project%20%3D%20UIMA

The source and binary tar/zips are here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit/3.0.0-rc1/

The Maven artifacts are here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1209

The GIT tag is here:
https://github.com/apache/uima-uimafit/tree/uimafit-3.0.0

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.

- -- Richard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=tRa+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

Hi,

so... after a long while...

> On 25. Jan 2019, at 00:17, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> 
> API compare: the old version is 2.1.0 - should it be 2.4.0? (not a blocker)

Addressed by UIMA-6005

> checked api conformance - discussed in another note. (not a blocker here)

Addressed by UIMA-6006 - the isMultiValuedFeature signature has been restored.
However, the changes to the return values in CasUtil, JCasUtil, and 
FSCollectionFactory remain. I am using the major version jump to get rid of
some sins of the past.

> saw that tests were running with NOP logger - not a blocker - because I don't
> think logging is being used. (not a blocker)

Addressed by UIMA-6004

> It appears that two issues fixed in 3.0.0 didn't make it to the fixed list:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-5348
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-5810
> (not a blocker ?  but may be indicative of some problem in the release process?)

These had the wrong "component". Added the "uimaFIT" component to both.

> It appears that the dependency declared in uimafit-core for "commons-logging"
> isn't needed? (not a blocker)

Addressed by UIMA-6009 - the Maven dependency plugin is now used to ensure
that there are not too few and not too many dependencies. 

> NOTICE files have 2016 or 2017 (depending on binary or source-release) as the
> end copyright date, probably should say 2019, or be left off. (not a blocker)

Addressed by https://github.com/apache/uima-uimafit/pull/56 (no Jira)

> in the source-release, the file api-change-report.html (which aggregates the 3
> generated ones) is missing (not a blocker)

Addressed by UIMA-6012

> There's a new project, "benchmark", which isn't described in the docs?  (not a
> blocker)

It is not meant for user consumption and not deployed to Maven Central.

So this should (hopefully) tackle it. While at it, I have made a few additional
improvements. Now I'll go on to prepare the next RC.

Cheers,

-- Richard

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

Thanks for the thorough review. I'll go over these, check in particular
the remarks about the API changes and then get back here.

-- Richard

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

signatures - OK
compare git tag with source-release: OK

   updated the clone I already had, then switched to the release/3.0.0 branch

build from sources: Javadoc warnings in several projects due to missing
parameters (not a blocker)

API compare: the old version is 2.1.0 - should it be 2.4.0? (not a blocker)

checked api conformance - discussed in another note. (not a blocker here)

saw that tests were running with NOP logger - not a blocker - because I don't
think logging is being used. (not a blocker)

It appears that two issues fixed in 3.0.0 didn't make it to the fixed list:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-5348
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-5810
(not a blocker ?  but may be indicative of some problem in the release process?)

It appears that the dependency declared in uimafit-core for "commons-logging"
isn't needed? (not a blocker)

NOTICE files have 2016 or 2017 (depending on binary or source-release) as the
end copyright date, probably should say 2019, or be left off. (not a blocker)

in the source-release, the file api-change-report.html (which aggregates the 3
generated ones) is missing (not a blocker)

There's a new project, "benchmark", which isn't described in the docs?  (not a
blocker)

License check OK

All in all, I'm a bit on the fence for voting +1, due to the several issues
reported above; I'm kind of feeling that there are enough of the not-a-blocker
minor issues to warrant fixing them.

If you feel you want to proceed with this anyways, please say so, and I'll
probably vote +1.

-Marshall

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

[CANCEL] [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

Thanks for the reviews and sorry for the long delay.

This vote is now officially canceled. A new RC will be prepared.

Cheers,

-- Richard

> On 13. Jan 2019, at 00:53, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've posted the uimaFIT 3.0.0 release candidate 1.
> 
> uimaFIT 3.0.0 is major feature release which makes uimaFIT
> compatible with UIMAJ v3. It includes incompatible API changes
> as well as new features and bug fixes.
> 
> Changes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%203.0.0uimaFIT%20AND%20project%20%3D%20UIMA
> 
> The source and binary tar/zips are here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit/3.0.0-rc1/
> 
> The Maven artifacts are here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1209
> 
> The GIT tag is here:
> https://github.com/apache/uima-uimafit/tree/uimafit-3.0.0
> 
> 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.
> 
> - -- Richard
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPY2MKJLmMo4NDQCrO8wPPFbjAA4FAlw6fXxfFIAAAAAALgAo
> aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNE
> OEQ4QzI4OTJFNjMyOEUwRDBEMDBBQjNCQ0MwRjNDNTZFMzAwMEUACgkQO8wPPFbj
> AA58QRAApEckTczCA81nvR8m9P+Nqd57vMJj0Dn4PIbxp1J1jbU80PSvjgislUAx
> g8gZ+HujDUqQmB4FqwtHk+hBRMmJwbj5CJ1Uetzcpo690Mkj9MJh/xeCAT5OJ8A4
> qWjQ2cVW85D1LBSQEtIQoFJew0cp+aoFKJwaQCTVjwLv8ZO1NNkroATgK1HqFZ6B
> mEDFruIGt+ByDE8YEfge0ANbC3FCZQoTi277HRO3gMEjkWJhK4HoEuK2Fyc58cPc
> JLDUPegUwoHYuiO+bAAkE9wWCaoa5JBmrXfgPNeegKTLPLyUdVbYjOUNVPcloc/M
> OIQAg7SMtN44YaY8ilHHhqVUYTSGeKt+vXXF3fIxH2zHOfsRA9SPKT6bEGPfUzCl
> 9WC0TUcboUn5ilPzXlJaaRBEKp9Eqq6pRG5El1vRFeJ8QPcP1VxsaKDA1NchO6BA
> bFZqs/ynCYGVs5vLrjlFOpqAju0zFkSEuQqG7m3uSPIhEScun6MMjwgcfuTedVL7
> KdD2gBl2RrBwC7sdGE2JZNZe+e2D0j0XyrDPdkl33J8aAs7ps4aC2eUFr8CvWA8M
> hX+dqtM1+j72zwGMDJpyugoii/fwWFDyoI7acJk+Xrw00agsMjfuxpMLAIaYjJJg
> NKW+EMenz760hj//7q7csF5AGwUR29IwqEPKNe7EHCAdq5NdYjY=
> =tRa+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

Putting myself in the position of a user of uimaFIT (and UIMA) v2:

To upgrade myself to v3, for UIMA, I could migrate the JCas classes (if any),
and then, without recompiling, just run using UIMA 3 (because UIMA 3 is "binary
compatible" at the public API level (at least that was the goal :-) ). 

I guess the uimaFIT v3 design probably requires some upgrade, and probably a
recompile, for v3.

I reran the build using 2.4.0 as the previous version, to get a sense of
backwards compatibility issues.  In general, it looks pretty good :-).

I see that ...internal.ExtendedLogger class was removed, and other classes that
might reference it were updated.  This seems unlikely to cause user problems.

One kind of change to CasUtil, JCasUtil, and FSCollectionFactory operations
might cause user problems unless the user recompiles the code - these are
changes which change the return type of select and selectFS, and create.

Other changes which could be a problem is the removal of FSUtil's
isMultiValuedFeature. 

If you're happy introducing these changes, then this is fine with me (not a
blocker). 

You might want to augment the "migration guide" chapter 11.1 to include the
removal of FSUtil's isMultiValuedFeature (and any other removed things a user
might be using) (or add that back... :-) ).

-Marshall

On 1/24/2019 11:29 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> On 24. Jan 2019, at 16:43, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>> I noticed the API compare reports ( japicmp ) are being calculated using version
>> 2.1.0 (dates from 2014)
>> Should this be uimaFIT 2.4.0?
> Well, it probably should. But it also doesn't matter because it is a major
> release anyway. It would be relevant if it were a bugfix release in order
> to discover if there were any changes that would warrant upgrading it to
> a feature release. For the next v3 version, this should be set to 3.0.0.
>
> -- Richard

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

On 24. Jan 2019, at 16:43, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> 
> I noticed the API compare reports ( japicmp ) are being calculated using version
> 2.1.0 (dates from 2014)
> Should this be uimaFIT 2.4.0?

Well, it probably should. But it also doesn't matter because it is a major
release anyway. It would be relevant if it were a bugfix release in order
to discover if there were any changes that would warrant upgrading it to
a feature release. For the next v3 version, this should be set to 3.0.0.

-- Richard

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

I noticed the API compare reports ( japicmp ) are being calculated using version
2.1.0 (dates from 2014)
Should this be uimaFIT 2.4.0?

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.

It's most likely caused by the property:
<jiraVersion>3.0.0uimaFIT</jiraVersion>

This should use the internal jira id for the version I think.


Peter


Am 15.01.2019 um 09:20 schrieb Peter Klügl:
> - built source-release - OK
> - spot checked sigs - OK
> - spot checked readme/license - OK
> - built ruta-v3 - OK
> - no RELEASE-NOTES.html in root folder
> - issuesFixed/jira-report.html is empty - Is this a blocker?
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> Am 13.01.2019 um 00:53 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've posted the uimaFIT 3.0.0 release candidate 1.
>>
>> uimaFIT 3.0.0 is major feature release which makes uimaFIT
>> compatible with UIMAJ v3. It includes incompatible API changes
>> as well as new features and bug fixes.
>>
>> Changes:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%203.0.0uimaFIT%20AND%20project%20%3D%20UIMA
>>
>> The source and binary tar/zips are here:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit/3.0.0-rc1/
>>
>> The Maven artifacts are here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1209
>>
>> The GIT tag is here:
>> https://github.com/apache/uima-uimafit/tree/uimafit-3.0.0
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> -- Richard

-- 
Dr. Peter Klügl
R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning

Averbis GmbH
Tennenbacher Str. 11
79106 Freiburg
Germany

Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
Email: peter.kluegl@averbis.com
Web: https://averbis.com

Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.

- jira-report in zip - OK

[X] +1 OK to release


Peter


Am 15.01.2019 um 09:20 schrieb Peter Klügl:
> - built source-release - OK
> - spot checked sigs - OK
> - spot checked readme/license - OK
> - built ruta-v3 - OK
> - no RELEASE-NOTES.html in root folder
> - issuesFixed/jira-report.html is empty - Is this a blocker?
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> Am 13.01.2019 um 00:53 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've posted the uimaFIT 3.0.0 release candidate 1.
>>
>> uimaFIT 3.0.0 is major feature release which makes uimaFIT
>> compatible with UIMAJ v3. It includes incompatible API changes
>> as well as new features and bug fixes.
>>
>> Changes:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%203.0.0uimaFIT%20AND%20project%20%3D%20UIMA
>>
>> The source and binary tar/zips are here:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit/3.0.0-rc1/
>>
>> The Maven artifacts are here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1209
>>
>> The GIT tag is here:
>> https://github.com/apache/uima-uimafit/tree/uimafit-3.0.0
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> -- Richard

-- 
Dr. Peter Klügl
R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning

Averbis GmbH
Tennenbacher Str. 11
79106 Freiburg
Germany

Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
Email: peter.kluegl@averbis.com
Web: https://averbis.com

Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

starting review

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

+1 from me to continue ... -Marshall

On 1/22/2019 12:22 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the pointer Marshall - no idea why I missed this...
>
> I have replaced the artifacts at 
>
>   https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit/3.0.0-rc1/
>
> with the ones from target/checkout/target (no re-running of the build)
> and they do contain a good issues file.
>
> I wouldn't call it a new RC because there was no new build, I just uploaded
> the wrong files and this is now corrected.
>
> So is it ok to continue with this vote thread?
>
> -- Richard
>
>> On 21. Jan 2019, at 16:32, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In "SVN", the release:perform step checks out the proposed "tag" and redoes the
>> entire "build" using that.  The artifacts that are deployed to the staging repo
>> (repository.apache.org) are from that checkout.
>>
>> (I think the "GitHub" version works the same way?)
>>
>> The artifacts that are are supposed to be the RC should also come from that
>> checkout/build.
>>
>> I'm guessing that the RC files are incorrectly being taken from the wrong spot?
>>
>> If so, to correct this, please repost an RC2 without rerunning the build, but
>> having the artifacts for the RC come from the "checkout" (release:perform) spot,
>> instead.
>>
>> -Marshall
>

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

Hi,

thanks for the pointer Marshall - no idea why I missed this...

I have replaced the artifacts at 

  https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit/3.0.0-rc1/

with the ones from target/checkout/target (no re-running of the build)
and they do contain a good issues file.

I wouldn't call it a new RC because there was no new build, I just uploaded
the wrong files and this is now corrected.

So is it ok to continue with this vote thread?

-- Richard

> On 21. Jan 2019, at 16:32, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In "SVN", the release:perform step checks out the proposed "tag" and redoes the
> entire "build" using that.  The artifacts that are deployed to the staging repo
> (repository.apache.org) are from that checkout.
> 
> (I think the "GitHub" version works the same way?)
> 
> The artifacts that are are supposed to be the RC should also come from that
> checkout/build.
> 
> I'm guessing that the RC files are incorrectly being taken from the wrong spot?
> 
> If so, to correct this, please repost an RC2 without rerunning the build, but
> having the artifacts for the RC come from the "checkout" (release:perform) spot,
> instead.
> 
> -Marshall

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

Hi,

In "SVN", the release:perform step checks out the proposed "tag" and redoes the
entire "build" using that.  The artifacts that are deployed to the staging repo
(repository.apache.org) are from that checkout.

(I think the "GitHub" version works the same way?)

The artifacts that are are supposed to be the RC should also come from that
checkout/build.

I'm guessing that the RC files are incorrectly being taken from the wrong spot?

If so, to correct this, please repost an RC2 without rerunning the build, but
having the artifacts for the RC come from the "checkout" (release:perform) spot,
instead.

-Marshall

On 1/15/2019 2:55 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> On 15. Jan 2019, at 20:33, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 15. Jan 2019, at 14:57, Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com> wrote:
>>> Hmm yes, but it is empty in the downloadable zips, e.g., source-release
>>> and bin.
>> Hm... very odd. After the local build is complete, the file has the proper contents...
>> But yes, you are right... in the distribution artifacts, it's simply empty...
> This is very strange. 
>
> The `uima-uimafit/issuesFixed/jira-report.html` file is empty (this is the one included in the ZIPs. I guess this is created during the Maven `release:prepare` step.
>
> But the `uima-uimafit/target/checkout/issuesFixed/jira-report.html` file created during the Maven `release:perform` step only a few minutes later has the correct contents.
>
> My best guess at this moment would be a temporary communication problem with the Jira server. So if I just re-run the release, it might fix the problem...
>
> That would be a pretty annoying reason to cancel an RC and do a new one with no changes at all... *sigh*
>
> -- Richard

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.

If there is a decision that this is not a blocker, then you'll get a +1
for the rest ;-)


Peter


Am 15.01.2019 um 20:55 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
> On 15. Jan 2019, at 20:33, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 15. Jan 2019, at 14:57, Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com> wrote:
>>> Hmm yes, but it is empty in the downloadable zips, e.g., source-release
>>> and bin.
>> Hm... very odd. After the local build is complete, the file has the proper contents...
>> But yes, you are right... in the distribution artifacts, it's simply empty...
> This is very strange. 
>
> The `uima-uimafit/issuesFixed/jira-report.html` file is empty (this is the one included in the ZIPs. I guess this is created during the Maven `release:prepare` step.
>
> But the `uima-uimafit/target/checkout/issuesFixed/jira-report.html` file created during the Maven `release:perform` step only a few minutes later has the correct contents.
>
> My best guess at this moment would be a temporary communication problem with the Jira server. So if I just re-run the release, it might fix the problem...
>
> That would be a pretty annoying reason to cancel an RC and do a new one with no changes at all... *sigh*
>
> -- Richard

-- 
Dr. Peter Klügl
R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning

Averbis GmbH
Tennenbacher Str. 11
79106 Freiburg
Germany

Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
Email: peter.kluegl@averbis.com
Web: https://averbis.com

Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

On 15. Jan 2019, at 20:33, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On 15. Jan 2019, at 14:57, Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hmm yes, but it is empty in the downloadable zips, e.g., source-release
>> and bin.
> 
> Hm... very odd. After the local build is complete, the file has the proper contents...
> But yes, you are right... in the distribution artifacts, it's simply empty...

This is very strange. 

The `uima-uimafit/issuesFixed/jira-report.html` file is empty (this is the one included in the ZIPs. I guess this is created during the Maven `release:prepare` step.

But the `uima-uimafit/target/checkout/issuesFixed/jira-report.html` file created during the Maven `release:perform` step only a few minutes later has the correct contents.

My best guess at this moment would be a temporary communication problem with the Jira server. So if I just re-run the release, it might fix the problem...

That would be a pretty annoying reason to cancel an RC and do a new one with no changes at all... *sigh*

-- Richard

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

On 15. Jan 2019, at 14:57, Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com> wrote:
> 
> Hmm yes, but it is empty in the downloadable zips, e.g., source-release
> and bin.

Hm... very odd. After the local build is complete, the file has the proper contents...
But yes, you are right... in the distribution artifacts, it's simply empty...

-- Richard

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.

Hmm yes, but it is empty in the downloadable zips, e.g., source-release
and bin.


Best,


Peter


Am 15.01.2019 um 14:35 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> works for me,
>
> My guess is that when building, you did not specify the -Papache-release property. 
> The issues fixed I think is only generated with that profile active.
>
> -Marshall
>
>
> On 1/15/2019 3:20 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> - built source-release - OK
>> - spot checked sigs - OK
>> - spot checked readme/license - OK
>> - built ruta-v3 - OK
>> - no RELEASE-NOTES.html in root folder
>> - issuesFixed/jira-report.html is empty - Is this a blocker?
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> Am 13.01.2019 um 00:53 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've posted the uimaFIT 3.0.0 release candidate 1.
>>>
>>> uimaFIT 3.0.0 is major feature release which makes uimaFIT
>>> compatible with UIMAJ v3. It includes incompatible API changes
>>> as well as new features and bug fixes.
>>>
>>> Changes:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%203.0.0uimaFIT%20AND%20project%20%3D%20UIMA
>>>
>>> The source and binary tar/zips are here:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit/3.0.0-rc1/
>>>
>>> The Maven artifacts are here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1209
>>>
>>> The GIT tag is here:
>>> https://github.com/apache/uima-uimafit/tree/uimafit-3.0.0
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> -- Richard

-- 
Dr. Peter Klügl
R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning

Averbis GmbH
Tennenbacher Str. 11
79106 Freiburg
Germany

Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
Email: peter.kluegl@averbis.com
Web: https://averbis.com

Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

works for me,

My guess is that when building, you did not specify the -Papache-release property. 
The issues fixed I think is only generated with that profile active.

-Marshall


On 1/15/2019 3:20 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> - built source-release - OK
> - spot checked sigs - OK
> - spot checked readme/license - OK
> - built ruta-v3 - OK
> - no RELEASE-NOTES.html in root folder
> - issuesFixed/jira-report.html is empty - Is this a blocker?
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> Am 13.01.2019 um 00:53 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've posted the uimaFIT 3.0.0 release candidate 1.
>>
>> uimaFIT 3.0.0 is major feature release which makes uimaFIT
>> compatible with UIMAJ v3. It includes incompatible API changes
>> as well as new features and bug fixes.
>>
>> Changes:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%203.0.0uimaFIT%20AND%20project%20%3D%20UIMA
>>
>> The source and binary tar/zips are here:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit/3.0.0-rc1/
>>
>> The Maven artifacts are here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1209
>>
>> The GIT tag is here:
>> https://github.com/apache/uima-uimafit/tree/uimafit-3.0.0
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> -- Richard

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.

- built source-release - OK
- spot checked sigs - OK
- spot checked readme/license - OK
- built ruta-v3 - OK
- no RELEASE-NOTES.html in root folder
- issuesFixed/jira-report.html is empty - Is this a blocker?


Peter


Am 13.01.2019 um 00:53 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
> Hi,
>
> I've posted the uimaFIT 3.0.0 release candidate 1.
>
> uimaFIT 3.0.0 is major feature release which makes uimaFIT
> compatible with UIMAJ v3. It includes incompatible API changes
> as well as new features and bug fixes.
>
> Changes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%203.0.0uimaFIT%20AND%20project%20%3D%20UIMA
>
> The source and binary tar/zips are here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit/3.0.0-rc1/
>
> The Maven artifacts are here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1209
>
> The GIT tag is here:
> https://github.com/apache/uima-uimafit/tree/uimafit-3.0.0
>
> 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.
>
> -- Richard

-- 
Dr. Peter Klügl
R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning

Averbis GmbH
Tennenbacher Str. 11
79106 Freiburg
Germany

Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
Email: peter.kluegl@averbis.com
Web: https://averbis.com

Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

also missing in some other projects...

On 1/24/2019 10:52 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> The uimaFIT examples tests fail to specify a slf4j logger to use, and the
> default supplied is a "no-op" logger, which discards anything that is attempted
> to be logged.
>
> Is this intentional?
>
> -M
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.

On 24. Jan 2019, at 16:52, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> 
> The uimaFIT examples tests fail to specify a slf4j logger to use, and the
> default supplied is a "no-op" logger, which discards anything that is attempted
> to be logged.
> 
> Is this intentional?

The logging we used before defaulted to logging to the console.
I didn't explicitly add a logging backed for the unit tests since
I had nothing in particular to debug there I guess.
So it is not intentional, but IMHO it is also not a problem.

-- Richard

Re: [VOTE] Release uimaFIT 3.0.0 rc 1

Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.

The uimaFIT examples tests fail to specify a slf4j logger to use, and the
default supplied is a "no-op" logger, which discards anything that is attempted
to be logged.

Is this intentional?

-M