You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com> on 2008/08/12 02:01:21 UTC
[VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
We have finished testing this release candidate and there are no
remaining issues that impact reliability or performance.
The release artifacts and RAT results are available on
p.a.o/~eae/uimacpp-release-candidates/2.2.2/02/
Please cast your vote:
[ ] +1 release candidate uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating RC02 is ready and
can be released
[ ] 0 don't care
[ ] -1 don't release yet, I found some more issues
Thanks,
Eddie
Re: [VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> - I'm unclear on the use of the APR in UIMACPP. I see APR
>>> headers in the UIMACPP binary distribution. The APR NOTICE
>>> file contains several acknowledgments that should be in
>>> the UIMACPP NOTICE file *if* UIMACPP uses APR.
>>
>> I can't find instructions to that effect. Can you please give me a
>> pointer?
>
> Hm, recent discussions on legal-discuss, for example here:
> http://markmail.org/message/qzvx2yb6msmo23kr
>
> Basically, the notice file needs to contain all required
> attributions. If the notice file of APR contains an
> attribution, and we're shipping APR, our notice file needs
> to contain that attribution, because we're shipping the
> code that made the APR folks put those statements into
> their notice file in the first place. We can trust APR
> to get the attributions right, but since we're not shipping
> the APR notice file, we need to copy the attributions over
> to our notice file, so they don't get lost. Does that make
> sense?
>
> If we're shipping only parts of APR, and we're sure we're
> ommitting those things that required those attributions,
> we can leave them out of our notice file. However, that
> way seems unnecessarily brittle. Just copy over the stuff
> from the APR notice file, and remember to do this every
> time you update your APR version :-)
>
Part of the APR notice has been added, but not the reference to MD5 as
this is not used or redistributed, and would burden uimacpp with
unnecessary cryptography registration requirements.
Thanks,
Eddie
Re: [VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> Thilo,
>
> Thanks for the pointers. Comments and question below...
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> I noticed the following:
>>
>> - The NOTICE files say "Apache UIMACPP". In the sandbox
>> releases, we just say "Apache UIMA". Not sure we should
>> say Apache UIMACPP, since that's not really a project
>> name?
>
> Good point.
>
>> - The src distribution says that it includes the ICU, both
>> in NOTICE and LICENSE. However, the ICU is not part of
>> the src distribution (it is of the binary distribution).
>> We should probably have two different NOTICE/LICENSE files,
>> for the binary and src distributions.
>
> Will do.
>
>> - I'm unclear on the use of the APR in UIMACPP. I see APR
>> headers in the UIMACPP binary distribution. The APR NOTICE
>> file contains several acknowledgments that should be in
>> the UIMACPP NOTICE file *if* UIMACPP uses APR.
>
> I can't find instructions to that effect. Can you please give me a pointer?
Hm, recent discussions on legal-discuss, for example here:
http://markmail.org/message/qzvx2yb6msmo23kr
Basically, the notice file needs to contain all required
attributions. If the notice file of APR contains an
attribution, and we're shipping APR, our notice file needs
to contain that attribution, because we're shipping the
code that made the APR folks put those statements into
their notice file in the first place. We can trust APR
to get the attributions right, but since we're not shipping
the APR notice file, we need to copy the attributions over
to our notice file, so they don't get lost. Does that make
sense?
If we're shipping only parts of APR, and we're sure we're
ommitting those things that required those attributions,
we can leave them out of our notice file. However, that
way seems unnecessarily brittle. Just copy over the stuff
from the APR notice file, and remember to do this every
time you update your APR version :-)
>
>> - include/xercesc/util/LogicalPath.c doesn't include a license
>> header, which is hardly our fault :-). Somebody might want
>> to tell the Xerces folks...
>>
>> - minor: examples/data/docforsegmenter.xcas contains a
>> license header, examples/data/docforsegmenter.xmi
>> doesn't. Any reason?
>
> Nope, will fix.
>
>> The bit about the ICU notice should be fixed before we take
>> this to the incubator, I think.
>>
>> --Thilo
>
> molte grazie,
> Eddie
Non c'รจ di che.
--Thilo
Re: [VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
Thilo,
Thanks for the pointers. Comments and question below...
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
> I noticed the following:
>
> - The NOTICE files say "Apache UIMACPP". In the sandbox
> releases, we just say "Apache UIMA". Not sure we should
> say Apache UIMACPP, since that's not really a project
> name?
Good point.
>
> - The src distribution says that it includes the ICU, both
> in NOTICE and LICENSE. However, the ICU is not part of
> the src distribution (it is of the binary distribution).
> We should probably have two different NOTICE/LICENSE files,
> for the binary and src distributions.
Will do.
>
> - I'm unclear on the use of the APR in UIMACPP. I see APR
> headers in the UIMACPP binary distribution. The APR NOTICE
> file contains several acknowledgments that should be in
> the UIMACPP NOTICE file *if* UIMACPP uses APR.
I can't find instructions to that effect. Can you please give me a pointer?
>
> - include/xercesc/util/LogicalPath.c doesn't include a license
> header, which is hardly our fault :-). Somebody might want
> to tell the Xerces folks...
>
> - minor: examples/data/docforsegmenter.xcas contains a
> license header, examples/data/docforsegmenter.xmi
> doesn't. Any reason?
Nope, will fix.
>
> The bit about the ICU notice should be fixed before we take
> this to the incubator, I think.
>
> --Thilo
molte grazie,
Eddie
Re: [VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
I noticed the following:
- The NOTICE files say "Apache UIMACPP". In the sandbox
releases, we just say "Apache UIMA". Not sure we should
say Apache UIMACPP, since that's not really a project
name?
- The src distribution says that it includes the ICU, both
in NOTICE and LICENSE. However, the ICU is not part of
the src distribution (it is of the binary distribution).
We should probably have two different NOTICE/LICENSE files,
for the binary and src distributions.
- I'm unclear on the use of the APR in UIMACPP. I see APR
headers in the UIMACPP binary distribution. The APR NOTICE
file contains several acknowledgments that should be in
the UIMACPP NOTICE file *if* UIMACPP uses APR.
- include/xercesc/util/LogicalPath.c doesn't include a license
header, which is hardly our fault :-). Somebody might want
to tell the Xerces folks...
- minor: examples/data/docforsegmenter.xcas contains a
license header, examples/data/docforsegmenter.xmi
doesn't. Any reason?
The bit about the ICU notice should be fixed before we take
this to the incubator, I think.
--Thilo
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> We have finished testing this release candidate and there are no
> remaining issues that impact reliability or performance.
>
> The release artifacts and RAT results are available on
> p.a.o/~eae/uimacpp-release-candidates/2.2.2/02/
>
> Please cast your vote:
>
> [ ] +1 release candidate uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating RC02 is ready and
> can be released
> [ ] 0 don't care
> [ ] -1 don't release yet, I found some more issues
>
> Thanks,
> Eddie
Re: [VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
Vote canceled. Will resubmit when RC3 is ready.
Thanks for the feedback,
Eddie
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have finished testing this release candidate and there are no
> remaining issues that impact reliability or performance.
>
> The release artifacts and RAT results are available on
> p.a.o/~eae/uimacpp-release-candidates/2.2.2/02/
>
> Please cast your vote:
>
> [ ] +1 release candidate uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating RC02 is ready and
> can be released
> [ ] 0 don't care
> [ ] -1 don't release yet, I found some more issues
>
> Thanks,
> Eddie
>
Re: [VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
OK, will do.
Thanks,
Eddie
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Need to check RAT report: some files noted there as missing apache
>>> license
>>> are not generated. For instance: Perl.html in scriptators/perl, and same
>>> for python and tcl.
>>>
>>
>> As far as I see, none of the html files in UIMA include the apache
>> license.
>>
>
> That's because they're generated from docbook sources, which *do* contain
> the license. We should put the license in the original source file.
Re: [VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> Marshall,
>
> Comments below ...
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> A small thing to maybe fix:
>> in examples/descriptors/XCasWriterCasConsumer.xml - there is a definition of
>> the SourceDocumentInformation element, inline (not "import"ed) that
>> contains:
>> <description>URI of document. (For example, file:///MyDirectory/myFile.txt
>> for a simple file or http://www.research.ibm.com/UIMA/relatedprojects.htm
>> for content from a web source.)</description>
>>
>> The web source is a dead link. This file is a modification of another file
>> in the main uima examples project. That project has an import-by-name for
>> the SourceDocumentInformation type, which, in turn, uses an apache.org
>> sample descriptor in the same comment
>> (http://incubator.apache.org/uima/index.html for content from a web source).
>>
>> Not a show stopper. If fixing, it might be worth a general look to bring
>> all the examples that are mods of the UIMA core examples up to date with the
>> current UIMA core examples.
>>
>
> Will fix web link as suggested.
>
>
>> The bin docs/overview_and_setup.html appear to be generated by docbook, but
>> there is no source other than this file in SVN, so I guess they're not
>> generated. Probably should remove the <meta name="generator"
>> content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.70.0"> element :-). The copyright and
>> pub date are wrong (say February 2007).
>>
>> The docs are supposed to be using Apache UIMA, not just UIMA, at least for
>> the first mention in the doc. See
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html. The first mention in the
>> doc is "C++ Overview & Setup" (title).
>>
>>
>
> Will fix.
>
>
>> Need to check RAT report: some files noted there as missing apache license
>> are not generated. For instance: Perl.html in scriptators/perl, and same
>> for python and tcl.
>>
>
> As far as I see, none of the html files in UIMA include the apache license.
>
That's because they're generated from docbook sources, which *do*
contain the license. We should put the license in the original source
file.
>
>> The aclocal.m4 file has GNU licenses without the special exception. May
>> need to upgrade the automake version.
>>
>
> Yes, a newer version of automake fixes this.
>
Great !
> Many thanks!
> Eddie
>
>
Marshall
Re: [VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
Marshall,
Comments below ...
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> A small thing to maybe fix:
> in examples/descriptors/XCasWriterCasConsumer.xml - there is a definition of
> the SourceDocumentInformation element, inline (not "import"ed) that
> contains:
> <description>URI of document. (For example, file:///MyDirectory/myFile.txt
> for a simple file or http://www.research.ibm.com/UIMA/relatedprojects.htm
> for content from a web source.)</description>
>
> The web source is a dead link. This file is a modification of another file
> in the main uima examples project. That project has an import-by-name for
> the SourceDocumentInformation type, which, in turn, uses an apache.org
> sample descriptor in the same comment
> (http://incubator.apache.org/uima/index.html for content from a web source).
>
> Not a show stopper. If fixing, it might be worth a general look to bring
> all the examples that are mods of the UIMA core examples up to date with the
> current UIMA core examples.
Will fix web link as suggested.
>
> The bin docs/overview_and_setup.html appear to be generated by docbook, but
> there is no source other than this file in SVN, so I guess they're not
> generated. Probably should remove the <meta name="generator"
> content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.70.0"> element :-). The copyright and
> pub date are wrong (say February 2007).
>
> The docs are supposed to be using Apache UIMA, not just UIMA, at least for
> the first mention in the doc. See
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html. The first mention in the
> doc is "C++ Overview & Setup" (title).
>
Will fix.
> Need to check RAT report: some files noted there as missing apache license
> are not generated. For instance: Perl.html in scriptators/perl, and same
> for python and tcl.
As far as I see, none of the html files in UIMA include the apache license.
>
> The aclocal.m4 file has GNU licenses without the special exception. May
> need to upgrade the automake version.
Yes, a newer version of automake fixes this.
Many thanks!
Eddie
Re: [VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
A small thing to maybe fix:
in examples/descriptors/XCasWriterCasConsumer.xml - there is a
definition of the SourceDocumentInformation element, inline (not
"import"ed) that contains:
<description>URI of document. (For example,
file:///MyDirectory/myFile.txt for a simple file or
http://www.research.ibm.com/UIMA/relatedprojects.htm for content from a
web source.)</description>
The web source is a dead link. This file is a modification of another
file in the main uima examples project. That project has an
import-by-name for the SourceDocumentInformation type, which, in turn,
uses an apache.org sample descriptor in the same comment
(http://incubator.apache.org/uima/index.html for content from a web source).
Not a show stopper. If fixing, it might be worth a general look to
bring all the examples that are mods of the UIMA core examples up to
date with the current UIMA core examples.
The bin docs/overview_and_setup.html appear to be generated by docbook,
but there is no source other than this file in SVN, so I guess they're
not generated. Probably should remove the <meta name="generator"
content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.70.0"> element :-). The copyright
and pub date are wrong (say February 2007).
The docs are supposed to be using Apache UIMA, not just UIMA, at least
for the first mention in the doc. See
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html. The first mention in
the doc is "C++ Overview & Setup" (title).
Need to check RAT report: some files noted there as missing apache
license are not generated. For instance: Perl.html in scriptators/perl,
and same for python and tcl.
The aclocal.m4 file has GNU licenses without the special exception. May
need to upgrade the automake version.
more later... (maybe).
-Marshall
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> We have finished testing this release candidate and there are no
> remaining issues that impact reliability or performance.
>
> The release artifacts and RAT results are available on
> p.a.o/~eae/uimacpp-release-candidates/2.2.2/02/
>
> Please cast your vote:
>
> [ ] +1 release candidate uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating RC02 is ready and
> can be released
> [ ] 0 don't care
> [ ] -1 don't release yet, I found some more issues
>
> Thanks,
> Eddie
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release uimacpp-2.2.2-02 as uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating
Posted by Adam Lally <al...@alum.rpi.edu>.
Pn Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have finished testing this release candidate and there are no
> remaining issues that impact reliability or performance.
>
> The release artifacts and RAT results are available on
> p.a.o/~eae/uimacpp-release-candidates/2.2.2/02/
>
> Please cast your vote:
>
> [ ] +1 release candidate uimacpp-2.2.2-incubating RC02 is ready and
> can be released
> [ ] 0 don't care
> [ ] -1 don't release yet, I found some more issues
>
+1
-Adam