uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Klügl <pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache UIMA TextMarker RC2 AND Composite Repository
Date Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:28:53 GMT
On 30.01.2013 15:35, Marshall Schor wrote:
> On 1/29/2013 4:28 PM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Am 29.01.2013 20:19, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>>> Eclipse-update-site:
>>>
>>> I think that the name of the sub-site directory in the composite site should
not
>>> have a version number.  It won't be changing from version to version; within
>>> that directory, multiple versions will occur (over time) in the features/ and
>>> plugins/ directories.
>> My intension was to provide a subsite for each release. For
>> uima-textmarker-2.0.1 for example, we would just simply change the version
>> property (and some versions in category.xml), build the update site and then
>> add it as an additional folder to the composite repository. This would be a
>> bit less work than adding new artifacts to the update site. There would not be
>> any difference for the user and we do not have to touch already released
>> update sites.
> OK, I had not thought of that.  It sounds like an interesting use of the
> composite update site approach.
> I wonder if there are any reasons to prefer one approach over the other.
>
> The only thing I can think of is that having one site with multiple feature
> versions and plugin versions allows potentially more "sharing", for instance in
> the case where a new version of some feature upgrades some (but not all) plugins.
>
> I don't have a strong feeling either way about this at the moment...

I keep the version number for now and we will see if the approach is 
reasonable in practice.

Peter


> -Marshall
>> The next release in mind, I already added the version to the name of the folder.
>>
>> Anyways, this is nothing to argue about. If you prefer a single update site
>> for all version of a category, then I will remove the version in the next RC.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
> <snip>


Mime
View raw message