uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam Lally" <ala...@alum.rpi.edu>
Subject Re: Considering some re-org of SVN
Date Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:35:06 GMT
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
> Also, if I understand you right, you're suggesting that we have just an
> "everything" package, instead of these "add-on" packages. If we have just an
> everything package, would we not have a base package?  That would mean that
> people who wanted just uima base would be downloading a lot more than they
> will use.

 I was suggesting that an "everything" package might replace what you
were suggesting as the "base + uima-as" package.  I haven't completely
made up my mind about dropping the base-only release.  Would our users
really be that upset about getting extra stuff they don't want?  (I
don't think we're talking about huge amounts of stuff to download, are
we?)

Furthermore, if we have a lot more tools under development, it may
make sense to consider tools separate from the "base" - and at that
point would anyone want a base-only release?

> We could, of course, have a style where the binaries would be:
>  base
>  base + annotators
>  base + annotators + simple server
>  base + uima-as
>  base + c++
>
> etc., various "combinations" of the parts.  I think such a packaging would
> get out of hand (too many variants).
> Or, perhaps you're suggesting:
>  base
>  base + everything else (or a subset of everything else - e.g., uima-as, cas
> editor, annotators, but not the simple server?)
>
> I think our offerings will continue to grow, and may become more diverse
> (e.g., a sample "Type System", or corpora for training, or repository
> functionality might be added).  So I lean toward a strategy that allows for
> some number of "parts" as separately managed things, together with an
> attempt to occasionally put out semi-synchronized "big" releases with all or
> most of the parts, like the Eclipse approach.
>

I think having synchronized (why only semi?) "big" releases with all
the parts (at least all the mature ones) would be a big improvement.

As for the piecemeal releases, could these only be for minor version
updates since the last major release?  I can see some value in having
separate bug-fix updates for different components, sort of like the
hotfix we just had (but with changing the version #).  The idea is
that users can avoid doing any update at all if the only thing that's
changed is something they don't use.  So we're saving the user work,
rather than adding more work which is what we're doing by not having
any synchronization at all between our parts and forcing users to
download things piecemeal as they become available.

  -Adam

Mime
View raw message