uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marshall Schor <...@schor.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA Java SDK 2.6.0 rc1
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:04:55 GMT

On 4/24/2014 4:56 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> build from source zip on Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_51-b13) - OK
> JAR in binary zip: OK
> - Licenses in place, look ok
> Signature of some files checked: OK
> Javadoc: OK
> build from source zip on Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0-b132) - non-critical

> - javadoc stuff
> jira report - non-critical
> - says "${project.verson}" 
That seems to be some issue with the maven changes plugin.
> binary zip: non-critital
> - NOTICE file says "Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation". Shouldn't new releases
have at least an up-to-date year there? I remember getting a mail early this year from Apache
reminding about updating the year in copyright notices. The NOTICE files in the JARs say "Copyright
2006-2014 The Apache Software Foundation".

The copyright dates: there are 1 or 2.  If there is 1, it is supposed to be the
earliest date.  There was some discussion in the mailing list about just using 1
date.  I chose that approach to avoid having the 2nd date be wrong.

> upgraded uimaFIT to new SDK and tested build: FAIL
> - Most of the unit tests on combining CPEs with external resources fail
> [X] -1 Not OK to release, because of test case failures in uimaFIT
> I will investigate the reason for these failures and report back as soon as possible.
Great!  good catch...
> -- Richard
> P.S.: The Eclipse update site in the mail pointed to the SVN, not to an actual update
site. Maybe intentional, but I do not understand why.
Sorry, should be more clear - that's just a record of the state of the
update-site-project as of the time it was run for packaging the update site. 
The real update site is in the same people.a.o/~schor ... spot.
> P.P.S.: Do we need to sign out votes now? ... GPG says the signature on your vote is
We don't need to sign.  However, I was experimenting.  I think what happened
(and it's happened before), is I sent this from my apache.org address, and that
address isn't set up to be allowed to the uima dev list (!), so it went into the
moderation queue.  I suspect that when it got moderated through, some header or
?? was updated, and this invalidated the signature.


View raw message