You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de> on 2013/02/01 14:15:23 UTC
[VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Hi,
the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA
TextMarker is ready for voting. This vote also includes our new
composite repository.
Staging repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
SVN tag:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
textmarker-2.0.0:
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
They can also be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
Documentation (pdf file):
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
Please vote on release:
[ ] +1 OK to release
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
Thanks.
Peter
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/1/2013 8:23 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Two things I noticed:
>
> 1. the footer in the documentation says: UIMA Version 2.0.0. I will take a
> look where I can override the product.
>
> 2. what about the license of the uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools? Do we need to
> mention the icons? The binaries in the update site are also a bit problematic.
Yes, I think the license that shows in the Eclipse install GUI for the
uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools needs to mention the icons.
-M
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>
>>
>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>
>>
>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>> They can also be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>
>> Documentation (pdf file):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>
>>
>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Two things I noticed:
1. the footer in the documentation says: UIMA Version 2.0.0. I will take
a look where I can override the product.
2. what about the license of the uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools? Do we need
to mention the icons? The binaries in the update site are also a bit
problematic.
Peter
On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA
> TextMarker is ready for voting. This vote also includes our new
> composite repository.
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>
>
> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
> textmarker-2.0.0:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>
>
> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
> They can also be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
>
>
> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>
> Documentation (pdf file):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>
>
> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>
>
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Am 04.02.2013 19:55, schrieb Marshall Schor:
> On 2/2/2013 6:56 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Am 01.02.2013 23:11, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>>> Installed OK into Eclipse 3.7.
>>>
>>> Failed to install into Eclipse 4.2 (fresh unzip) with this message:
>> Eclipse 4.2 is not supported yet.
> I think the README and Release Notes might want to note this (and any other
> limitations), rather than have users try it out and have it fail...
It is mentioned in the documentation on page 61 ;-)
I will add a note to both files.
Peter
> -Marshall
>> I have created [UIMA-2582] and already did some work in this direction, but it
>> broke all (!!!) my maven-built workspaces. My motivation to provide a
>> compatible version for Eclispe 4.2 will certainly increase again sometime.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>> Cannot complete the install because one or more required items could not be
>>> found.
>>> Software being installed: UIMA TextMarker Workbench 2.0.0
>>> (org.apache.uima.textmarker.feature.feature.group 2.0.0)
>>> Missing requirement: Apache UIMA TextMarker Eclipse: textmarker-ep-addons
>>> 2.0.0 (org.apache.uima.textmarker.addons 2.0.0) requires 'bundle
>>> org.eclipse.dltk.core [3.0.0,4.0.0)' but it could not be found
>>> Cannot satisfy dependency:
>>> From: UIMA TextMarker Workbench 2.0.0
>>> (org.apache.uima.textmarker.feature.feature.group 2.0.0)
>>> To: org.apache.uima.textmarker.addons [2.0.0]
>>>
>>> This happens with "Contact all update sites during install to find required
>>> software" checked.
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>> On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>>>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>>>
>>>> Staging repository:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>>>
>>>> SVN tag:
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>>>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>>> They can also be found here:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>>>
>>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please vote on release:
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/2/2013 6:56 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Am 01.02.2013 23:11, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>> Installed OK into Eclipse 3.7.
>>
>> Failed to install into Eclipse 4.2 (fresh unzip) with this message:
>
> Eclipse 4.2 is not supported yet.
I think the README and Release Notes might want to note this (and any other
limitations), rather than have users try it out and have it fail...
-Marshall
> I have created [UIMA-2582] and already did some work in this direction, but it
> broke all (!!!) my maven-built workspaces. My motivation to provide a
> compatible version for Eclispe 4.2 will certainly increase again sometime.
>
> Peter
>
>
>> Cannot complete the install because one or more required items could not be
>> found.
>> Software being installed: UIMA TextMarker Workbench 2.0.0
>> (org.apache.uima.textmarker.feature.feature.group 2.0.0)
>> Missing requirement: Apache UIMA TextMarker Eclipse: textmarker-ep-addons
>> 2.0.0 (org.apache.uima.textmarker.addons 2.0.0) requires 'bundle
>> org.eclipse.dltk.core [3.0.0,4.0.0)' but it could not be found
>> Cannot satisfy dependency:
>> From: UIMA TextMarker Workbench 2.0.0
>> (org.apache.uima.textmarker.feature.feature.group 2.0.0)
>> To: org.apache.uima.textmarker.addons [2.0.0]
>>
>> This happens with "Contact all update sites during install to find required
>> software" checked.
>>
>> -Marshall
>> On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>>
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>>
>>> SVN tag:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>> They can also be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>>
>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please vote on release:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Am 01.02.2013 23:11, schrieb Marshall Schor:
> Installed OK into Eclipse 3.7.
>
> Failed to install into Eclipse 4.2 (fresh unzip) with this message:
Eclipse 4.2 is not supported yet. I have created [UIMA-2582] and already
did some work in this direction, but it broke all (!!!) my maven-built
workspaces. My motivation to provide a compatible version for Eclispe
4.2 will certainly increase again sometime.
Peter
> Cannot complete the install because one or more required items could not be found.
> Software being installed: UIMA TextMarker Workbench 2.0.0
> (org.apache.uima.textmarker.feature.feature.group 2.0.0)
> Missing requirement: Apache UIMA TextMarker Eclipse: textmarker-ep-addons
> 2.0.0 (org.apache.uima.textmarker.addons 2.0.0) requires 'bundle
> org.eclipse.dltk.core [3.0.0,4.0.0)' but it could not be found
> Cannot satisfy dependency:
> From: UIMA TextMarker Workbench 2.0.0
> (org.apache.uima.textmarker.feature.feature.group 2.0.0)
> To: org.apache.uima.textmarker.addons [2.0.0]
>
> This happens with "Contact all update sites during install to find required
> software" checked.
>
> -Marshall
> On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>
>>
>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>
>>
>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>> They can also be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>
>> Documentation (pdf file):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>
>>
>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Installed OK into Eclipse 3.7.
Failed to install into Eclipse 4.2 (fresh unzip) with this message:
Cannot complete the install because one or more required items could not be found.
Software being installed: UIMA TextMarker Workbench 2.0.0
(org.apache.uima.textmarker.feature.feature.group 2.0.0)
Missing requirement: Apache UIMA TextMarker Eclipse: textmarker-ep-addons
2.0.0 (org.apache.uima.textmarker.addons 2.0.0) requires 'bundle
org.eclipse.dltk.core [3.0.0,4.0.0)' but it could not be found
Cannot satisfy dependency:
From: UIMA TextMarker Workbench 2.0.0
(org.apache.uima.textmarker.feature.feature.group 2.0.0)
To: org.apache.uima.textmarker.addons [2.0.0]
This happens with "Contact all update sites during install to find required
software" checked.
-Marshall
On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>
>
> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
> textmarker-2.0.0:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>
>
> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
> They can also be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
>
>
> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>
> Documentation (pdf file):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>
>
> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>
>
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
>
Re: having the textmarker top POM also serve as the parent-pom for
sub-modules
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
I have no opinion concerning this. There will be another RC, so I will
separate parent and top-level.
Peter
Am 04.02.2013 21:25, schrieb Marshall Schor:
> The following is not a blocker, but describes a more general problem, which we
> might want to fix at some point.
>
> The current structure is "double-purposing" the top level project:
> 1) for both the "modules" and building the top-level artifacts, and
> 2) for being the parent-pom of the sub-modules.
>
> Because of this, all of the "build" steps in the top level POM (under <build>...
> <plugins>...) that are there for building at the top level, such as preparing
> the Jira issues resolved, could be inherited by the sub-modules, who are
> pointing to the top level project in order to inherit common things, as their
> parent-pom.
>
> There are two approaches for this: One is to split the parent-pom function from
> the top level build, by having an additional project (which might be called
> textmarker-parent, for example). All of the projects in textmarker which need
> some factored common setup would specify this as the parent pom (including the
> top level project), and it would be included as a <module> in the top level
> pom. This is how uimaj, uima-as, and uima-addons are set up.
>
> The other approach for this is to arrange for all of the build steps that the
> top level pom specifies only get done at the top level - where this pom is. This
> can "mostly" be done. For example, the source-assembly set includes the
> configuration <runOnlyAtExecutionRoot>true which prevents this from being
> inherited below.
>
> There is also a maven model xml element for plugin, <inherited>false, which can
> be set, and works to prevent some (but not all) plugins from running at other
> than the level containing the POM. It seems to work for the ant-run plugin, but
> doesn't work for the maven changes plugin (at least it didn't work when I tried it).
>
> The result is that with this build design, the maven changes plugin extracts
> from Jira and puts in the issues fixed information into all the subprojects, not
> just the top level project.
>
> Splitting the two functions (top level assembly, etc., from parent-pom) into two
> projects solves this issue, and potentially also other similar kinds issues that
> may arise in the future. But I don't think it's a blocker for this release.
> And, if Maven improves (I'm running Maven version 3.0.3), maybe the approach
> taken here is better in that it eliminates the need for a separate parent-pom
> project.
>
> -Marshall
Re: having the textmarker top POM also serve as the parent-pom for
sub-modules
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
The following is not a blocker, but describes a more general problem, which we
might want to fix at some point.
The current structure is "double-purposing" the top level project:
1) for both the "modules" and building the top-level artifacts, and
2) for being the parent-pom of the sub-modules.
Because of this, all of the "build" steps in the top level POM (under <build>...
<plugins>...) that are there for building at the top level, such as preparing
the Jira issues resolved, could be inherited by the sub-modules, who are
pointing to the top level project in order to inherit common things, as their
parent-pom.
There are two approaches for this: One is to split the parent-pom function from
the top level build, by having an additional project (which might be called
textmarker-parent, for example). All of the projects in textmarker which need
some factored common setup would specify this as the parent pom (including the
top level project), and it would be included as a <module> in the top level
pom. This is how uimaj, uima-as, and uima-addons are set up.
The other approach for this is to arrange for all of the build steps that the
top level pom specifies only get done at the top level - where this pom is. This
can "mostly" be done. For example, the source-assembly set includes the
configuration <runOnlyAtExecutionRoot>true which prevents this from being
inherited below.
There is also a maven model xml element for plugin, <inherited>false, which can
be set, and works to prevent some (but not all) plugins from running at other
than the level containing the POM. It seems to work for the ant-run plugin, but
doesn't work for the maven changes plugin (at least it didn't work when I tried it).
The result is that with this build design, the maven changes plugin extracts
from Jira and puts in the issues fixed information into all the subprojects, not
just the top level project.
Splitting the two functions (top level assembly, etc., from parent-pom) into two
projects solves this issue, and potentially also other similar kinds issues that
may arise in the future. But I don't think it's a blocker for this release.
And, if Maven improves (I'm running Maven version 3.0.3), maybe the approach
taken here is better in that it eliminates the need for a separate parent-pom
project.
-Marshall
Re: Suggestion to add a binary zip/tar distributable
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 05.02.2013 16:16, Marshall Schor wrote:
> I think there is no binary distribution zip/tar for textmarker? I think it
> might be wanted - for users who want to download the engine (which is a UIMA
> Annotator), the example project, and maybe some other things. This would let
> them assemble an application which included running TextMarker, without relying
> on Maven and/or Eclipse.
>
> We do this with most of our addons projects, as well as with our main uimaj,
> uima-as, uima-cpp components.
>
> There's a pre-configured build setup that the addons use, which you could
> probably reuse, and share much of the configuration for doing this already in
> the uima-wide parent-pom.
I will prepare something for the next RC.
Peter
> -Marshall
>
> On 2/5/2013 9:47 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The Examples project has a License.txt file.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the purpose is. Maybe the thinking is that it is required,
>> because there's some intent to "release" this somehow has an independent
>> distributable entity.
>>
>> If it is required, then a notice file is too, I think.
>>
>> ======================
>>
>> A more basic question: what is the plan for making the Examples projects
>> available for distribution?
>>
>> I don't think it's proper to ask the general public to fetch things from SVN;
>> things that are part of releases have to go in one or both of the 2 release
>> spots: the Apache mirror system, and/or Maven Central for Maven artifacts.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>>
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>>
>>> SVN tag:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>>
>>>
>>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>>
>>>
>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>> They can also be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>>
>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please vote on release:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
Suggestion to add a binary zip/tar distributable
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I think there is no binary distribution zip/tar for textmarker? I think it
might be wanted - for users who want to download the engine (which is a UIMA
Annotator), the example project, and maybe some other things. This would let
them assemble an application which included running TextMarker, without relying
on Maven and/or Eclipse.
We do this with most of our addons projects, as well as with our main uimaj,
uima-as, uima-cpp components.
There's a pre-configured build setup that the addons use, which you could
probably reuse, and share much of the configuration for doing this already in
the uima-wide parent-pom.
-Marshall
On 2/5/2013 9:47 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> The Examples project has a License.txt file.
>
> I'm not sure what the purpose is. Maybe the thinking is that it is required,
> because there's some intent to "release" this somehow has an independent
> distributable entity.
>
> If it is required, then a notice file is too, I think.
>
> ======================
>
> A more basic question: what is the plan for making the Examples projects
> available for distribution?
>
> I don't think it's proper to ask the general public to fetch things from SVN;
> things that are part of releases have to go in one or both of the 2 release
> spots: the Apache mirror system, and/or Maven Central for Maven artifacts.
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>
>>
>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>
>>
>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>> They can also be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>
>> Documentation (pdf file):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>
>>
>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
License.txt in the Examples project?
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
The Examples project has a License.txt file.
I'm not sure what the purpose is. Maybe the thinking is that it is required,
because there's some intent to "release" this somehow has an independent
distributable entity.
If it is required, then a notice file is too, I think.
======================
A more basic question: what is the plan for making the Examples projects
available for distribution?
I don't think it's proper to ask the general public to fetch things from SVN;
things that are part of releases have to go in one or both of the 2 release
spots: the Apache mirror system, and/or Maven Central for Maven artifacts.
-Marshall
On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>
>
> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
> textmarker-2.0.0:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>
>
> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
> They can also be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
>
>
> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>
> Documentation (pdf file):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>
>
> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>
>
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/5/2013 8:06 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 05.02.2013 00:08, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Let me know what you think.
>
> The files look fine.
>
> I must admit that I do not fully understand your proposal.
>
> So, I put uima-eclipse-user-agreement.html in the root of the feature and
> uima-eclipse-user-agreement.txt in the properties.
+1.
> The LICENSE in META-INF just covers the feature.jar and, therefore, contains
> only the ASL stuff. The plugins contain LICENSE files with the other licenses
> like CPL.
+1.
>
> Is that enough?
Plugin Jars need NOTICE files if there are any notices that go with the Licenses.
> Do we need to mention the other licenses in the click-through license (first
> line)?
Surprisingly, no. The Eclipse way is to require the user to crawl through the
plugin Jars looking in all the directories, for LICENSE, NOTICE, and ABOUT files.
> Do we need to provide link to the other licenses in the user agreement?
Grey area - I think not, unless there is a requirement for "prominent" display.
There is such a requirement for Category "B" licenses, and I think you have one
of these (the CPL ?) - but that's already listed.
-Marshall
>
> Peter
>
> PS: I thought the plain-text license is the click-though license and not the
> html version.
They're both the click-through - they're identical except for html formatting.
The one shown by the P2 installer is typically the .txt; perhaps there's some
way to make it show the .html :-)
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 05.02.2013 00:08, Marshall Schor wrote:
> I've put drafts of the click-thru licenses for features here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/uima/build/trunk/uima-build-resources/src/main/resources/licenses-eclipse-plugs-features/
>
> These, like the Eclipse "feature-update-licenses" are completely generic... and
> refer to things
> in the plugins.
>
> Let me know what you think.
The files look fine.
I must admit that I do not fully understand your proposal.
So, I put uima-eclipse-user-agreement.html in the root of the feature
and uima-eclipse-user-agreement.txt in the properties. The LICENSE in
META-INF just covers the feature.jar and, therefore, contains only the
ASL stuff. The plugins contain LICENSE files with the other licenses
like CPL.
Is that enough?
Do we need to mention the other licenses in the click-through license
(first line)?
Do we need to provide link to the other licenses in the user agreement?
Peter
PS: I thought the plain-text license is the click-though license and not
the html version.
> -Marshall
>
> On 2/4/2013 4:58 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> On 2/4/2013 3:59 PM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Am 04.02.2013 18:17, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>>>> On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>> I noticed that the additional license.txt doesn't match the LICENSE in the
>>>> META-INF spot. It would be better to only have one. Are you sure the version
>>>> of this at the top level is needed by Eclipse? (Other features we have, e.g.
>>>> uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools_2.4.0.jar, don't have a license.txt file at the top
>>>> level.)
>>> The License.txt file is an externalized version of the license in Eclipse
>>> covering all bundled plugins. I think there is a spot in Eclipse where the
>>> user can take a look at the license after the feature is installed.
>> Yes, thanks. The fine point is: which license etc. covers "just" the feature
>> artifact (isolated, without any plugins) and the whole set of things represented
>> by the Feature - which includes all of its plugins. I missed that.
>>
>> I took a look at how Eclipse uses these, itself, and I think it works like this:
>>
>> The feature.xml file has a spec for a "user agreement" (which is confusingly
>> also called a license), to be applied to the whole installed feature. This spec
>> has 2 parts - the license "url", and the license itself. In Eclipse (and in
>> textmarker), these are %style variables, that refer to same named properties in
>> the feature.properties files.
>>
>> In Eclipse, the features use the url pointer to point to a top level xxx.html
>> file, which is an html-formatted version of the "user agreement" for installing
>> and using the feature. This is what you called the click-thru license. There
>> is also a plain text version of this "user agreement", embedded in the
>> feature.properties file itself.
>>
>> The "user agreement" is fairly generic, and contains pointers to full licenses.
>> The pointers are both to web sites, and to things packaged with the whole
>> installed feature (meaning the feature and all of its plugins), somewhere. I
>> think it is important to have a local copy (in case the website goes away at
>> some point in the future). It's generic in that it says the license/notices are
>> included but doesn't say exactly where (in the set of the feature/plugin artifacts).
>>
>> So, it seems to me the right organization for us might be:
>>
>> 1) put into the top level an html form of an equivalent to their "user
>> agreement". I'll take a crack at making one of these... modeled after both
>> Eclipse's and our previous attempt at this (in uimaj features for example).
>> This will be "generic" and reference by name other Licenses and Notice files,
>> just like Eclipse does it.
>>
>> -- putting this into the top level follows the Eclipse convention
>> -- it's meant to cover the feature plus all the plugins that go with it in the
>> distribution of the feature as packaged in the update site.
>>
>> 2) put into META-INF the full text (minus the how-to-apply-appendix) of the ASF
>> license
>>
>> -- putting this into the META-INF directory follows Apache conventions
>> -- this covers just the feature artifact itself. So the plain Apache
>> License/Notice files should work here.
>>
>> 3) set the feature.properties for licenseURL to point to (1).
>>
>> 4) put the plain text form of (1) into the existing feature.properties file
>>
>> 5) set the feature.xml as you now have it:
>>
>> <license url="%licenseURL">
>> %license
>> </license>
>>
>> Then, we'll have everything (the full, standard ASF license, the shorter
>> user-agreement (plain text & html) ) in one place, in the spots expected by the
>> ASF and Eclipse, with the right coverages for each one.
>>
>> The one other thing to insure is that any additional licenses needed are indeed
>> packaged somewhere among the plugins included with the distribution.
>>
>> How does that sound?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>>> The license in META-INF is that one for the feature.jar. The name
>>> "License.txt" is maybe missleading and can be changed (there is a pointer in
>>> the feature.xml).
>>>
>>> Summarizing, there is a difference between the click-though license (update
>>> site) and this one, which can be provided in html. At least, this is how I
>>> understood it.
>> I think there is no difference between the feature
>> Any pointers to this info on the web?
>>
>>> Should I rename it to, e.g., "BundleLicense.txt"?
>> I don't think so- I would still advocate for removing it and putting it into the
>> META-INF directory and having just one.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/5/2013 8:19 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 05.02.2013 00:08, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> I've put drafts of the click-thru licenses for features here:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/uima/build/trunk/uima-build-resources/src/main/resources/licenses-eclipse-plugs-features/
>>
>>
>> These, like the Eclipse "feature-update-licenses" are completely generic... and
>> refer to things
>> in the plugins.
>>
>> Let me know what you think.
>
> The file "uima-eclipse-user-agreement.txt" has some html at the end:
>
> "<small>Java and all Java-based trademarks are trademarks of Oracle
> Corporation in the United States, other countries, or both.</small>
> </body>
> </html>"
ok; now fixed in svn. (Also added Apache UIMA trademark)
-Marshall
>
> Peter
>
>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On 2/4/2013 4:58 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2013 3:59 PM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>> Am 04.02.2013 18:17, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>>>>> On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> I noticed that the additional license.txt doesn't match the LICENSE in the
>>>>> META-INF spot. It would be better to only have one. Are you sure the
>>>>> version
>>>>> of this at the top level is needed by Eclipse? (Other features we have, e.g.
>>>>> uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools_2.4.0.jar, don't have a license.txt file at
>>>>> the top
>>>>> level.)
>>>> The License.txt file is an externalized version of the license in Eclipse
>>>> covering all bundled plugins. I think there is a spot in Eclipse where the
>>>> user can take a look at the license after the feature is installed.
>>> Yes, thanks. The fine point is: which license etc. covers "just" the feature
>>> artifact (isolated, without any plugins) and the whole set of things
>>> represented
>>> by the Feature - which includes all of its plugins. I missed that.
>>>
>>> I took a look at how Eclipse uses these, itself, and I think it works like
>>> this:
>>>
>>> The feature.xml file has a spec for a "user agreement" (which is confusingly
>>> also called a license), to be applied to the whole installed feature. This spec
>>> has 2 parts - the license "url", and the license itself. In Eclipse (and in
>>> textmarker), these are %style variables, that refer to same named properties in
>>> the feature.properties files.
>>>
>>> In Eclipse, the features use the url pointer to point to a top level xxx.html
>>> file, which is an html-formatted version of the "user agreement" for installing
>>> and using the feature. This is what you called the click-thru license. There
>>> is also a plain text version of this "user agreement", embedded in the
>>> feature.properties file itself.
>>>
>>> The "user agreement" is fairly generic, and contains pointers to full licenses.
>>> The pointers are both to web sites, and to things packaged with the whole
>>> installed feature (meaning the feature and all of its plugins), somewhere. I
>>> think it is important to have a local copy (in case the website goes away at
>>> some point in the future). It's generic in that it says the license/notices
>>> are
>>> included but doesn't say exactly where (in the set of the feature/plugin
>>> artifacts).
>>>
>>> So, it seems to me the right organization for us might be:
>>>
>>> 1) put into the top level an html form of an equivalent to their "user
>>> agreement". I'll take a crack at making one of these... modeled after both
>>> Eclipse's and our previous attempt at this (in uimaj features for example).
>>> This will be "generic" and reference by name other Licenses and Notice files,
>>> just like Eclipse does it.
>>>
>>> -- putting this into the top level follows the Eclipse convention
>>> -- it's meant to cover the feature plus all the plugins that go with it
>>> in the
>>> distribution of the feature as packaged in the update site.
>>>
>>> 2) put into META-INF the full text (minus the how-to-apply-appendix) of the
>>> ASF
>>> license
>>>
>>> -- putting this into the META-INF directory follows Apache conventions
>>> -- this covers just the feature artifact itself. So the plain Apache
>>> License/Notice files should work here.
>>>
>>> 3) set the feature.properties for licenseURL to point to (1).
>>>
>>> 4) put the plain text form of (1) into the existing feature.properties file
>>>
>>> 5) set the feature.xml as you now have it:
>>>
>>> <license url="%licenseURL">
>>> %license
>>> </license>
>>>
>>> Then, we'll have everything (the full, standard ASF license, the shorter
>>> user-agreement (plain text & html) ) in one place, in the spots expected by the
>>> ASF and Eclipse, with the right coverages for each one.
>>>
>>> The one other thing to insure is that any additional licenses needed are indeed
>>> packaged somewhere among the plugins included with the distribution.
>>>
>>> How does that sound?
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>>> The license in META-INF is that one for the feature.jar. The name
>>>> "License.txt" is maybe missleading and can be changed (there is a pointer in
>>>> the feature.xml).
>>>>
>>>> Summarizing, there is a difference between the click-though license (update
>>>> site) and this one, which can be provided in html. At least, this is how I
>>>> understood it.
>>> I think there is no difference between the feature
>>> Any pointers to this info on the web?
>>>
>>>> Should I rename it to, e.g., "BundleLicense.txt"?
>>> I don't think so- I would still advocate for removing it and putting it into
>>> the
>>> META-INF directory and having just one.
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 05.02.2013 00:08, Marshall Schor wrote:
> I've put drafts of the click-thru licenses for features here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/uima/build/trunk/uima-build-resources/src/main/resources/licenses-eclipse-plugs-features/
>
> These, like the Eclipse "feature-update-licenses" are completely generic... and
> refer to things
> in the plugins.
>
> Let me know what you think.
The file "uima-eclipse-user-agreement.txt" has some html at the end:
"<small>Java and all Java-based trademarks are trademarks of Oracle
Corporation in the United States, other countries, or both.</small>
</body>
</html>"
Peter
> -Marshall
>
> On 2/4/2013 4:58 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> On 2/4/2013 3:59 PM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Am 04.02.2013 18:17, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>>>> On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>> I noticed that the additional license.txt doesn't match the LICENSE in the
>>>> META-INF spot. It would be better to only have one. Are you sure the version
>>>> of this at the top level is needed by Eclipse? (Other features we have, e.g.
>>>> uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools_2.4.0.jar, don't have a license.txt file at the top
>>>> level.)
>>> The License.txt file is an externalized version of the license in Eclipse
>>> covering all bundled plugins. I think there is a spot in Eclipse where the
>>> user can take a look at the license after the feature is installed.
>> Yes, thanks. The fine point is: which license etc. covers "just" the feature
>> artifact (isolated, without any plugins) and the whole set of things represented
>> by the Feature - which includes all of its plugins. I missed that.
>>
>> I took a look at how Eclipse uses these, itself, and I think it works like this:
>>
>> The feature.xml file has a spec for a "user agreement" (which is confusingly
>> also called a license), to be applied to the whole installed feature. This spec
>> has 2 parts - the license "url", and the license itself. In Eclipse (and in
>> textmarker), these are %style variables, that refer to same named properties in
>> the feature.properties files.
>>
>> In Eclipse, the features use the url pointer to point to a top level xxx.html
>> file, which is an html-formatted version of the "user agreement" for installing
>> and using the feature. This is what you called the click-thru license. There
>> is also a plain text version of this "user agreement", embedded in the
>> feature.properties file itself.
>>
>> The "user agreement" is fairly generic, and contains pointers to full licenses.
>> The pointers are both to web sites, and to things packaged with the whole
>> installed feature (meaning the feature and all of its plugins), somewhere. I
>> think it is important to have a local copy (in case the website goes away at
>> some point in the future). It's generic in that it says the license/notices are
>> included but doesn't say exactly where (in the set of the feature/plugin artifacts).
>>
>> So, it seems to me the right organization for us might be:
>>
>> 1) put into the top level an html form of an equivalent to their "user
>> agreement". I'll take a crack at making one of these... modeled after both
>> Eclipse's and our previous attempt at this (in uimaj features for example).
>> This will be "generic" and reference by name other Licenses and Notice files,
>> just like Eclipse does it.
>>
>> -- putting this into the top level follows the Eclipse convention
>> -- it's meant to cover the feature plus all the plugins that go with it in the
>> distribution of the feature as packaged in the update site.
>>
>> 2) put into META-INF the full text (minus the how-to-apply-appendix) of the ASF
>> license
>>
>> -- putting this into the META-INF directory follows Apache conventions
>> -- this covers just the feature artifact itself. So the plain Apache
>> License/Notice files should work here.
>>
>> 3) set the feature.properties for licenseURL to point to (1).
>>
>> 4) put the plain text form of (1) into the existing feature.properties file
>>
>> 5) set the feature.xml as you now have it:
>>
>> <license url="%licenseURL">
>> %license
>> </license>
>>
>> Then, we'll have everything (the full, standard ASF license, the shorter
>> user-agreement (plain text & html) ) in one place, in the spots expected by the
>> ASF and Eclipse, with the right coverages for each one.
>>
>> The one other thing to insure is that any additional licenses needed are indeed
>> packaged somewhere among the plugins included with the distribution.
>>
>> How does that sound?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>>> The license in META-INF is that one for the feature.jar. The name
>>> "License.txt" is maybe missleading and can be changed (there is a pointer in
>>> the feature.xml).
>>>
>>> Summarizing, there is a difference between the click-though license (update
>>> site) and this one, which can be provided in html. At least, this is how I
>>> understood it.
>> I think there is no difference between the feature
>> Any pointers to this info on the web?
>>
>>> Should I rename it to, e.g., "BundleLicense.txt"?
>> I don't think so- I would still advocate for removing it and putting it into the
>> META-INF directory and having just one.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I've put drafts of the click-thru licenses for features here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/uima/build/trunk/uima-build-resources/src/main/resources/licenses-eclipse-plugs-features/
These, like the Eclipse "feature-update-licenses" are completely generic... and
refer to things
in the plugins.
Let me know what you think.
-Marshall
On 2/4/2013 4:58 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 3:59 PM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Am 04.02.2013 18:17, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>>> On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>> I noticed that the additional license.txt doesn't match the LICENSE in the
>>> META-INF spot. It would be better to only have one. Are you sure the version
>>> of this at the top level is needed by Eclipse? (Other features we have, e.g.
>>> uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools_2.4.0.jar, don't have a license.txt file at the top
>>> level.)
>> The License.txt file is an externalized version of the license in Eclipse
>> covering all bundled plugins. I think there is a spot in Eclipse where the
>> user can take a look at the license after the feature is installed.
> Yes, thanks. The fine point is: which license etc. covers "just" the feature
> artifact (isolated, without any plugins) and the whole set of things represented
> by the Feature - which includes all of its plugins. I missed that.
>
> I took a look at how Eclipse uses these, itself, and I think it works like this:
>
> The feature.xml file has a spec for a "user agreement" (which is confusingly
> also called a license), to be applied to the whole installed feature. This spec
> has 2 parts - the license "url", and the license itself. In Eclipse (and in
> textmarker), these are %style variables, that refer to same named properties in
> the feature.properties files.
>
> In Eclipse, the features use the url pointer to point to a top level xxx.html
> file, which is an html-formatted version of the "user agreement" for installing
> and using the feature. This is what you called the click-thru license. There
> is also a plain text version of this "user agreement", embedded in the
> feature.properties file itself.
>
> The "user agreement" is fairly generic, and contains pointers to full licenses.
> The pointers are both to web sites, and to things packaged with the whole
> installed feature (meaning the feature and all of its plugins), somewhere. I
> think it is important to have a local copy (in case the website goes away at
> some point in the future). It's generic in that it says the license/notices are
> included but doesn't say exactly where (in the set of the feature/plugin artifacts).
>
> So, it seems to me the right organization for us might be:
>
> 1) put into the top level an html form of an equivalent to their "user
> agreement". I'll take a crack at making one of these... modeled after both
> Eclipse's and our previous attempt at this (in uimaj features for example).
> This will be "generic" and reference by name other Licenses and Notice files,
> just like Eclipse does it.
>
> -- putting this into the top level follows the Eclipse convention
> -- it's meant to cover the feature plus all the plugins that go with it in the
> distribution of the feature as packaged in the update site.
>
> 2) put into META-INF the full text (minus the how-to-apply-appendix) of the ASF
> license
>
> -- putting this into the META-INF directory follows Apache conventions
> -- this covers just the feature artifact itself. So the plain Apache
> License/Notice files should work here.
>
> 3) set the feature.properties for licenseURL to point to (1).
>
> 4) put the plain text form of (1) into the existing feature.properties file
>
> 5) set the feature.xml as you now have it:
>
> <license url="%licenseURL">
> %license
> </license>
>
> Then, we'll have everything (the full, standard ASF license, the shorter
> user-agreement (plain text & html) ) in one place, in the spots expected by the
> ASF and Eclipse, with the right coverages for each one.
>
> The one other thing to insure is that any additional licenses needed are indeed
> packaged somewhere among the plugins included with the distribution.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> -Marshall
>
>> The license in META-INF is that one for the feature.jar. The name
>> "License.txt" is maybe missleading and can be changed (there is a pointer in
>> the feature.xml).
>>
>> Summarizing, there is a difference between the click-though license (update
>> site) and this one, which can be provided in html. At least, this is how I
>> understood it.
> I think there is no difference between the feature
> Any pointers to this info on the web?
>
>> Should I rename it to, e.g., "BundleLicense.txt"?
> I don't think so- I would still advocate for removing it and putting it into the
> META-INF directory and having just one.
>
> -Marshall
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/4/2013 3:59 PM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Am 04.02.2013 18:17, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>> On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> <snip>
>> I noticed that the additional license.txt doesn't match the LICENSE in the
>> META-INF spot. It would be better to only have one. Are you sure the version
>> of this at the top level is needed by Eclipse? (Other features we have, e.g.
>> uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools_2.4.0.jar, don't have a license.txt file at the top
>> level.)
>
> The License.txt file is an externalized version of the license in Eclipse
> covering all bundled plugins. I think there is a spot in Eclipse where the
> user can take a look at the license after the feature is installed.
Yes, thanks. The fine point is: which license etc. covers "just" the feature
artifact (isolated, without any plugins) and the whole set of things represented
by the Feature - which includes all of its plugins. I missed that.
I took a look at how Eclipse uses these, itself, and I think it works like this:
The feature.xml file has a spec for a "user agreement" (which is confusingly
also called a license), to be applied to the whole installed feature. This spec
has 2 parts - the license "url", and the license itself. In Eclipse (and in
textmarker), these are %style variables, that refer to same named properties in
the feature.properties files.
In Eclipse, the features use the url pointer to point to a top level xxx.html
file, which is an html-formatted version of the "user agreement" for installing
and using the feature. This is what you called the click-thru license. There
is also a plain text version of this "user agreement", embedded in the
feature.properties file itself.
The "user agreement" is fairly generic, and contains pointers to full licenses.
The pointers are both to web sites, and to things packaged with the whole
installed feature (meaning the feature and all of its plugins), somewhere. I
think it is important to have a local copy (in case the website goes away at
some point in the future). It's generic in that it says the license/notices are
included but doesn't say exactly where (in the set of the feature/plugin artifacts).
So, it seems to me the right organization for us might be:
1) put into the top level an html form of an equivalent to their "user
agreement". I'll take a crack at making one of these... modeled after both
Eclipse's and our previous attempt at this (in uimaj features for example).
This will be "generic" and reference by name other Licenses and Notice files,
just like Eclipse does it.
-- putting this into the top level follows the Eclipse convention
-- it's meant to cover the feature plus all the plugins that go with it in the
distribution of the feature as packaged in the update site.
2) put into META-INF the full text (minus the how-to-apply-appendix) of the ASF
license
-- putting this into the META-INF directory follows Apache conventions
-- this covers just the feature artifact itself. So the plain Apache
License/Notice files should work here.
3) set the feature.properties for licenseURL to point to (1).
4) put the plain text form of (1) into the existing feature.properties file
5) set the feature.xml as you now have it:
<license url="%licenseURL">
%license
</license>
Then, we'll have everything (the full, standard ASF license, the shorter
user-agreement (plain text & html) ) in one place, in the spots expected by the
ASF and Eclipse, with the right coverages for each one.
The one other thing to insure is that any additional licenses needed are indeed
packaged somewhere among the plugins included with the distribution.
How does that sound?
-Marshall
> The license in META-INF is that one for the feature.jar. The name
> "License.txt" is maybe missleading and can be changed (there is a pointer in
> the feature.xml).
>
> Summarizing, there is a difference between the click-though license (update
> site) and this one, which can be provided in html. At least, this is how I
> understood it.
I think there is no difference between the feature
Any pointers to this info on the web?
>
> Should I rename it to, e.g., "BundleLicense.txt"?
I don't think so- I would still advocate for removing it and putting it into the
META-INF directory and having just one.
-Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Am 04.02.2013 18:17, schrieb Marshall Schor:
> On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> A short summary of my reviewing:
>>
>> Tested TextMarker Workbench (Win7 64bit, Eclipse 3.7.2)
>> - checked update site (uimaj and textmarker-2.0.0) and license (textmarker-2.0.0)
>> - tested launch, explain, testing and query functionality
>>
>> Can someone test the Workbench with other OS? I heard that the layout of the
>> query view is broken in other OS, but I cannot reproduce it. It should look
>> like Figure 3.13 in the documentation.
>>
>> Tested textmarker-core.jar integration in maven project
>>
>> textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>> - jira-report.html is completely localized ("JIRA-Bericht" instead of
>> "JIRA-Report")
>> - all issues are only resolved (not closed)
>> - license and notice are OK
>>
>> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0.jar and
>> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0-sources.jar
>> - additional license.txt in root (needed for Eclipse)
>> - icons mentioned in NOTICE, but package contains no icons
> I noticed that the additional license.txt doesn't match the LICENSE in the
> META-INF spot. It would be better to only have one. Are you sure the version
> of this at the top level is needed by Eclipse? (Other features we have, e.g.
> uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools_2.4.0.jar, don't have a license.txt file at the top
> level.)
The License.txt file is an externalized version of the license in
Eclipse covering all bundled plugins. I think there is a spot in Eclipse
where the user can take a look at the license after the feature is
installed. The license in META-INF is that one for the feature.jar. The
name "License.txt" is maybe missleading and can be changed (there is a
pointer in the feature.xml).
Summarizing, there is a difference between the click-though license
(update site) and this one, which can be provided in html. At least,
this is how I understood it.
Should I rename it to, e.g., "BundleLicense.txt"?
Peter
>> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0.jar
>> - contains templates/release-notes.vm (should not be there?)
>> - META-INF/ contains additional files LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt with default
>> content.
>> However, the files LICENSE and NOTICE are OK
>>
>> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0-sources.jar
>> - NOTICE file contains mention of additional libraries.
>> However, LICENSE is OK.
>>
>> tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>> - footer contains wrong product (says "UIMA 2.0.0")
>>
>>
>> Are those problems blockers?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>>
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>>
>>> SVN tag:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>>
>>>
>>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>>
>>>
>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>> They can also be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>>
>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please vote on release:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> A short summary of my reviewing:
>
> Tested TextMarker Workbench (Win7 64bit, Eclipse 3.7.2)
> - checked update site (uimaj and textmarker-2.0.0) and license (textmarker-2.0.0)
> - tested launch, explain, testing and query functionality
>
> Can someone test the Workbench with other OS? I heard that the layout of the
> query view is broken in other OS, but I cannot reproduce it. It should look
> like Figure 3.13 in the documentation.
>
> Tested textmarker-core.jar integration in maven project
>
> textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
> - jira-report.html is completely localized ("JIRA-Bericht" instead of
> "JIRA-Report")
> - all issues are only resolved (not closed)
> - license and notice are OK
>
> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0.jar and
> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0-sources.jar
> - additional license.txt in root (needed for Eclipse)
> - icons mentioned in NOTICE, but package contains no icons
I noticed that the additional license.txt doesn't match the LICENSE in the
META-INF spot. It would be better to only have one. Are you sure the version
of this at the top level is needed by Eclipse? (Other features we have, e.g.
uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools_2.4.0.jar, don't have a license.txt file at the top
level.)
>
> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0.jar
> - contains templates/release-notes.vm (should not be there?)
> - META-INF/ contains additional files LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt with default
> content.
> However, the files LICENSE and NOTICE are OK
>
> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0-sources.jar
> - NOTICE file contains mention of additional libraries.
> However, LICENSE is OK.
>
> tools.textmarker.book.pdf
> - footer contains wrong product (says "UIMA 2.0.0")
>
>
> Are those problems blockers?
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>
>>
>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>
>>
>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>> They can also be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>
>> Documentation (pdf file):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>
>>
>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Am 04.02.2013 19:37, schrieb Marshall Schor:
> On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> A short summary of my reviewing:
>>
>> Tested TextMarker Workbench (Win7 64bit, Eclipse 3.7.2)
>> - checked update site (uimaj and textmarker-2.0.0) and license (textmarker-2.0.0)
>> - tested launch, explain, testing and query functionality
>>
>> Can someone test the Workbench with other OS? I heard that the layout of the
>> query view is broken in other OS, but I cannot reproduce it. It should look
>> like Figure 3.13 in the documentation.
>>
>> Tested textmarker-core.jar integration in maven project
>>
>> textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>> - jira-report.html is completely localized ("JIRA-Bericht" instead of
>> "JIRA-Report")
> Try setting the default Java locale to English, for the JVM running maven. You
> might have to do this by setting MVN_OPTS.
MVN_OPT works.
Peter
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8809098/how-do-i-set-the-default-locale-for-my-jvm
> -Marshall
>> - all issues are only resolved (not closed)
>> - license and notice are OK
>>
>> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0.jar and
>> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0-sources.jar
>> - additional license.txt in root (needed for Eclipse)
>> - icons mentioned in NOTICE, but package contains no icons
>>
>> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0.jar
>> - contains templates/release-notes.vm (should not be there?)
>> - META-INF/ contains additional files LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt with default
>> content.
>> However, the files LICENSE and NOTICE are OK
>>
>> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0-sources.jar
>> - NOTICE file contains mention of additional libraries.
>> However, LICENSE is OK.
>>
>> tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>> - footer contains wrong product (says "UIMA 2.0.0")
>>
>>
>> Are those problems blockers?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>>
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>>
>>> SVN tag:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>>
>>>
>>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>>
>>>
>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>> They can also be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>>
>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please vote on release:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> A short summary of my reviewing:
>
> Tested TextMarker Workbench (Win7 64bit, Eclipse 3.7.2)
> - checked update site (uimaj and textmarker-2.0.0) and license (textmarker-2.0.0)
> - tested launch, explain, testing and query functionality
>
> Can someone test the Workbench with other OS? I heard that the layout of the
> query view is broken in other OS, but I cannot reproduce it. It should look
> like Figure 3.13 in the documentation.
>
> Tested textmarker-core.jar integration in maven project
>
> textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
> - jira-report.html is completely localized ("JIRA-Bericht" instead of
> "JIRA-Report")
Try setting the default Java locale to English, for the JVM running maven. You
might have to do this by setting MVN_OPTS.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8809098/how-do-i-set-the-default-locale-for-my-jvm
-Marshall
>
> - all issues are only resolved (not closed)
> - license and notice are OK
>
> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0.jar and
> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0-sources.jar
> - additional license.txt in root (needed for Eclipse)
> - icons mentioned in NOTICE, but package contains no icons
>
> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0.jar
> - contains templates/release-notes.vm (should not be there?)
> - META-INF/ contains additional files LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt with default
> content.
> However, the files LICENSE and NOTICE are OK
>
> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0-sources.jar
> - NOTICE file contains mention of additional libraries.
> However, LICENSE is OK.
>
> tools.textmarker.book.pdf
> - footer contains wrong product (says "UIMA 2.0.0")
>
>
> Are those problems blockers?
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>
>>
>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>
>>
>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>> They can also be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>
>> Documentation (pdf file):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>
>>
>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Am 04.02.2013 19:28, schrieb Marshall Schor:
> On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> A short summary of my reviewing:
>>
>> Tested TextMarker Workbench (Win7 64bit, Eclipse 3.7.2)
>> - checked update site (uimaj and textmarker-2.0.0) and license (textmarker-2.0.0)
>> - tested launch, explain, testing and query functionality
>>
>> Can someone test the Workbench with other OS? I heard that the layout of the
>> query view is broken in other OS, but I cannot reproduce it. It should look
>> like Figure 3.13 in the documentation.
>>
>> Tested textmarker-core.jar integration in maven project
>>
>> textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>> - jira-report.html is completely localized ("JIRA-Bericht" instead of
>> "JIRA-Report")
>> - all issues are only resolved (not closed)
> Is there any reason not to close these issues? It seems better to close them
> when doing a release. The Jira report plugin is configured (normally) to pick
> up both Resolved and Closed. So I don't think this is a blocker...
There is no reason. I will close them (this time without an email
notification, I hope).
Peter
> -Marshall
>> - license and notice are OK
>>
>> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0.jar and
>> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0-sources.jar
>> - additional license.txt in root (needed for Eclipse)
>> - icons mentioned in NOTICE, but package contains no icons
>>
>> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0.jar
>> - contains templates/release-notes.vm (should not be there?)
>> - META-INF/ contains additional files LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt with default
>> content.
>> However, the files LICENSE and NOTICE are OK
>>
>> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0-sources.jar
>> - NOTICE file contains mention of additional libraries.
>> However, LICENSE is OK.
>>
>> tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>> - footer contains wrong product (says "UIMA 2.0.0")
>>
>>
>> Are those problems blockers?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>>
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>>
>>> SVN tag:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>>
>>>
>>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>>
>>>
>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>> They can also be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>>
>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please vote on release:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> A short summary of my reviewing:
>
> Tested TextMarker Workbench (Win7 64bit, Eclipse 3.7.2)
> - checked update site (uimaj and textmarker-2.0.0) and license (textmarker-2.0.0)
> - tested launch, explain, testing and query functionality
>
> Can someone test the Workbench with other OS? I heard that the layout of the
> query view is broken in other OS, but I cannot reproduce it. It should look
> like Figure 3.13 in the documentation.
>
> Tested textmarker-core.jar integration in maven project
>
> textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
> - jira-report.html is completely localized ("JIRA-Bericht" instead of
> "JIRA-Report")
> - all issues are only resolved (not closed)
Is there any reason not to close these issues? It seems better to close them
when doing a release. The Jira report plugin is configured (normally) to pick
up both Resolved and Closed. So I don't think this is a blocker...
-Marshall
> - license and notice are OK
>
> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0.jar and
> textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0-sources.jar
> - additional license.txt in root (needed for Eclipse)
> - icons mentioned in NOTICE, but package contains no icons
>
> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0.jar
> - contains templates/release-notes.vm (should not be there?)
> - META-INF/ contains additional files LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt with default
> content.
> However, the files LICENSE and NOTICE are OK
>
> textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0-sources.jar
> - NOTICE file contains mention of additional libraries.
> However, LICENSE is OK.
>
> tools.textmarker.book.pdf
> - footer contains wrong product (says "UIMA 2.0.0")
>
>
> Are those problems blockers?
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>
>>
>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>
>>
>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>> They can also be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>
>> Documentation (pdf file):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>
>>
>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
A short summary of my reviewing:
Tested TextMarker Workbench (Win7 64bit, Eclipse 3.7.2)
- checked update site (uimaj and textmarker-2.0.0) and license
(textmarker-2.0.0)
- tested launch, explain, testing and query functionality
Can someone test the Workbench with other OS? I heard that the layout of
the query view is broken in other OS, but I cannot reproduce it. It
should look like Figure 3.13 in the documentation.
Tested textmarker-core.jar integration in maven project
textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
- jira-report.html is completely localized ("JIRA-Bericht" instead of
"JIRA-Report")
- all issues are only resolved (not closed)
- license and notice are OK
textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0.jar and
textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0-sources.jar
- additional license.txt in root (needed for Eclipse)
- icons mentioned in NOTICE, but package contains no icons
textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0.jar
- contains templates/release-notes.vm (should not be there?)
- META-INF/ contains additional files LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt with
default content.
However, the files LICENSE and NOTICE are OK
textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0-sources.jar
- NOTICE file contains mention of additional libraries.
However, LICENSE is OK.
tools.textmarker.book.pdf
- footer contains wrong product (says "UIMA 2.0.0")
Are those problems blockers?
Best,
Peter
On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA
> TextMarker is ready for voting. This vote also includes our new
> composite repository.
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>
>
> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
> textmarker-2.0.0:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>
>
> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
> They can also be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
>
>
> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>
> Documentation (pdf file):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>
>
> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>
>
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
Extra feature dependency in the TextMarker Feature
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
The textmarker doesn't need to depend on org.apache.uima.runtime, because the
other feature it depends on includes that.
-Marshall
On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>
>
> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
> textmarker-2.0.0:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>
>
> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
> They can also be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
>
>
> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>
> Documentation (pdf file):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>
>
> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>
>
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
>
Re: [VOTE][CANCELLED] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Cancelling this vote and preparing TextMarker RC4
Peter
On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA
> TextMarker is ready for voting. This vote also includes our new
> composite repository.
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>
>
> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
> textmarker-2.0.0:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>
>
> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
> They can also be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
>
>
> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>
> Documentation (pdf file):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>
>
> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>
>
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/2/2013 6:57 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Am 01.02.2013 23:18, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>> On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>>
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>>
>>> SVN tag:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>> They can also be found here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>>
>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>>
>>>
>> Note: the source-release.zip file belongs on the apache mirror distribution;
>> some recent discussions on the infra list say this is required. (Maven went to
>> the trouble to put all their source-release.zip files there.
>>
>> The source-release.zip file is not useful to upload to Maven Central, so it
>> should probably not routinely be put there (unless you have a need for
>> maven-style accessing of that, which I think is unlikely). It will just take up
>> room there.
>>
>> The individual sources.jar files are useful to upload to Maven Central, though -
>> the m2e plugin support can automatically fetch those when Eclipse wants to look
>> at the source.
>
>
> Do you have an idea, how I can prevent the upload of the source-release.zip?
You can try configuring the assembly plugin with the additional parameter attach
set to false.
This will leave the assembly in the target dir of the top level project, but
won't "attach" it to the set of artifacts that the install and later steps use
to move those artifacts into maven repositories, I think.
-Marshall
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
>> -Marshall
>>>
>>> Please vote on release:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Hi,
Am 01.02.2013 23:18, schrieb Marshall Schor:
> On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
>> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>>
>> SVN tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>>
>>
>> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
>> textmarker-2.0.0:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>>
>>
>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>> They can also be found here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>>
>> Documentation (pdf file):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>
>>
>> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>
> Note: the source-release.zip file belongs on the apache mirror distribution;
> some recent discussions on the infra list say this is required. (Maven went to
> the trouble to put all their source-release.zip files there.
>
> The source-release.zip file is not useful to upload to Maven Central, so it
> should probably not routinely be put there (unless you have a need for
> maven-style accessing of that, which I think is unlikely). It will just take up
> room there.
>
> The individual sources.jar files are useful to upload to Maven Central, though -
> the m2e plugin support can automatically fetch those when Eclipse wants to look
> at the source.
Do you have an idea, how I can prevent the upload of the source-release.zip?
Best,
Peter
> -Marshall
>>
>> Please vote on release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC3 AND Composite Repository
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 2/1/2013 8:15 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
> ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
>
>
> Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
> textmarker-2.0.0:
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
>
>
> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
> They can also be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
>
>
> ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
>
> Documentation (pdf file):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>
>
> Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>
Note: the source-release.zip file belongs on the apache mirror distribution;
some recent discussions on the infra list say this is required. (Maven went to
the trouble to put all their source-release.zip files there.
The source-release.zip file is not useful to upload to Maven Central, so it
should probably not routinely be put there (unless you have a need for
maven-style accessing of that, which I think is unlikely). It will just take up
room there.
The individual sources.jar files are useful to upload to Maven Central, though -
the m2e plugin support can automatically fetch those when Eclipse wants to look
at the source.
-Marshall
>
>
> Please vote on release:
>
> [ ] +1 OK to release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter
>
Re: license display in the Eclipse update site installer
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
This seems wrong in several ways, as I study more how Eclipse uses these.
So ignore this :-).
See other part of this thread that discussed this further, and Jira UIMA-2636.
-Marshall
On 2/4/2013 4:10 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> It seems to me that the license displayed in the Eclipse update site installer
> is typically shorter than the full Apache license, and includes a link to the
> full license. I don't recall the pros/cons here.
>
> For instance, the "short" version used in the uimaj plugins is:
>
> Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor
> license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for
> additional information regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this
> file to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not
> use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of
> the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0. Unless required by
> applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License
> is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
> KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language
> governing permissions and limitations under the License.
>
> The version used in textmarker is the full text, including the appendix on how
> to apply the Apache license to other works. I think, in any case, that Appendix
> should be omitted here.
>
> This is not a blocker, in my opinion, however.
>
> -Marshall
>
>
Re: license display in the Eclipse update site installer
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
It seems to me that the license displayed in the Eclipse update site installer
is typically shorter than the full Apache license, and includes a link to the
full license. I don't recall the pros/cons here.
For instance, the "short" version used in the uimaj plugins is:
Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor
license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for
additional information regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this
file to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not
use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of
the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0. Unless required by
applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License
is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language
governing permissions and limitations under the License.
The version used in textmarker is the full text, including the appendix on how
to apply the Apache license to other works. I think, in any case, that Appendix
should be omitted here.
This is not a blocker, in my opinion, however.
-Marshall
Re: Parent Pom - UIMA-Wide - do you want to use version 4 (the latest)?
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
Am 05.02.2013 19:28, schrieb Marshall Schor:
> hmmm, I think that UIMA-2560 is for version 5 (not yet released).
>
> Version 4 was released last May, 2012.
>
> Version 3 (the one textmarker is referring to) was released November 2011.
>
> I was suggesting using Version 4; I'm not suggesting releasing version 5 :-)
Oh, my mistake. Yes, version 4 should be used.
Peter
> -Marshall
>
> On 2/5/2013 11:52 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> On 05.02.2013 15:42, Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> The current parent-pom chain ends up referencing the uima-wide parent pom at
>>> version 3, but version 4 is the current one.
>>>
>>> Not sure if that matters, but might be worth changing.
>> What about UIMA-2560? Is there a chance it will influence the parent-pom?
>>
>> I think it's reasonable to release the parent-pom, but I like to use the old
>> one for the TextMarker release right now.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>> -Marshall
>>
Re: Parent Pom - UIMA-Wide - do you want to use version 4 (the latest)?
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
hmmm, I think that UIMA-2560 is for version 5 (not yet released).
Version 4 was released last May, 2012.
Version 3 (the one textmarker is referring to) was released November 2011.
I was suggesting using Version 4; I'm not suggesting releasing version 5 :-)
-Marshall
On 2/5/2013 11:52 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> On 05.02.2013 15:42, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The current parent-pom chain ends up referencing the uima-wide parent pom at
>> version 3, but version 4 is the current one.
>>
>> Not sure if that matters, but might be worth changing.
>
> What about UIMA-2560? Is there a chance it will influence the parent-pom?
>
> I think it's reasonable to release the parent-pom, but I like to use the old
> one for the TextMarker release right now.
>
> Peter
>
>
>>
>> -Marshall
>
>
Re: Parent Pom - UIMA-Wide - do you want to use version 4 (the latest)?
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 05.02.2013 15:42, Marshall Schor wrote:
> The current parent-pom chain ends up referencing the uima-wide parent pom at
> version 3, but version 4 is the current one.
>
> Not sure if that matters, but might be worth changing.
What about UIMA-2560? Is there a chance it will influence the parent-pom?
I think it's reasonable to release the parent-pom, but I like to use the
old one for the TextMarker release right now.
Peter
>
> -Marshall
Parent Pom - UIMA-Wide - do you want to use version 4 (the latest)?
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
The current parent-pom chain ends up referencing the uima-wide parent pom at
version 3, but version 4 is the current one.
Not sure if that matters, but might be worth changing.
-Marshall