uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Eckart de Castilho <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA SDK 2.8.0 rc4
Date Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:39:27 GMT
Looks like the static byte-code analysis done by the Semantic Versioning plug-in
doesn't catch that :/

So I guess, we have a binary-compatible change that is not source-compatible.

-- Richard

On 07.07.2015, at 15:36, Burn Lewis <burnlewis@gmail.com> wrote:

> The release notes say no API changes, but the return type of
> org.apache.uima.jcas.getAllIndexedFS has changed from  FSIterator<TOP> to
> FSIterator<FeatureStructure> which has produced a compile error in our code.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
> 
>> thanks, again :-) .
>> 
>> I remember that the lib folder jar names were debated 6-7 years ago. The
>> debate
>> centered more around whether or not to adopt the standard of how these
>> jars are
>> named in the Maven artifact repository.
>>   e.g.
>>   maven repo: uimaj-core-2.7.0.jar
>>   lib:        uima-core.jar
>> 
>> Not only is the "j" different, but the maven repo has the version appended.
>> 
>> Also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-355 has some comments on
>> renaming.
>> 
>> You can find this discussion in the mail archives.  For instance, search
>> uima.markmail.org with the keywords:
>>   naming uima-core uima-355
>> 
>> The bottom line for me sort of nets out to the following:
>> 
>>  1) Renaming the Jars to follow the Maven names would make things more
>> consistent
>>  2) Renaming the Jars to follow the Maven names would somewhat impact our
>> users
>> (who might be hard-coding the jar name, which for now, doesn't change in
>> the
>> lib/ dir of the binary distribution).
>> 
>> When I weight these two reasons, I feel it's more important not to impact
>> our
>> users, given the benefit is only one of some consistency.
>> But if there were no impact to the users, I would be fine with changing
>> this.
>> 
>> -Marshall
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/6/2015 12:52 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> Reason for the missing issuesFixed was that I was looking at a locally
>> built
>>> version (without -Papache-release) at that moment.
>>> 
>>> Re-did spot check of licenses/notices against the ZIP you provided -
>> still
>>> looks all ok and the issuesFixed is there.
>>> 
>>> So I maintain the +1.
>>> 
>>> Btw. I think I pointed this out in the past: why not switch from the
>>> "uima-XXX" naming to the proper "uimaj-XXX" naming in the lib folder?
>>> The files identify themselves as "uimaj-XXX" in their NOTICE files.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> -- Richard
>>> 
>>> On 06.07.2015, at 16:50, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the quick vote!
>>>> 
>>>> On the point about the link to "issues fixed" in RELEASE_NOTES.html of
>> the zip
>>>> distribution - I cannot reproduce this.
>>>> I tried unzipping the uimaj-2.8.0-bin.zip, then opening
>> RELEASE_NOTES.html, then
>>>> clicking on the table-of-contents link " List of JIRA Issues Fixed in
>> this
>>>> Release", and then clicked on "issuesFixed/jira-report.hmtl" under the
>> heading
>>>> "Full list of JIRA Issues Fixed in this Release".
>>>> 
>>>> I also tried the same thing unzipping the
>> uimaj-2.8.0-source-release.zip.  Both
>>>> worked OK for me.
>>>> 
>>>> Can you say more precisely what failed? The zips both included a
>> directory
>>>> "issuesFixed", and within that, the file "jira-report.html". (My test
>> was on
>>>> Windows).
>>>> 
>>>> -Marshall
>>>> 
>>>> On 7/5/2015 5:10 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>>>> Built from SVN tag with empty .m2 using JDK 7 on OS X - OK
>>>>> 
>>>>> Spot check for licenses and notices - OK
>>>>> 
>>>>> Built Apache uimaFIT trunk against this RC - OK
>>>>> 
>>>>> Built other software against this RC - OK
>>>>> 
>>>>> Spot check signatures - look OK (still need to get into the web of
>> trust...)
>>>>> 
>>>>> [X] +1 OK to release
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Link to "issues fixed" in RELEASE_NOTES.html of ZIP distribution does
>> not work. Shouldn't there be such a file in the ZIP? - Not critical, but
>> should be fixed in next release.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Btw. we have many issues that were marked as "resolved" or "closed"
>> but that do not have an assignee:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Resolved%20AND%20assignee%20in%20(EMPTY)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I fixed the assignee on those issues that I had initially reported.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Richard
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 04.07.2015, at 20:49, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> signatures - OK
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Source compare with tag: OK
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Install into Eclipse Luna: OK; tested by running the Component
>> Descriptor Editor
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Build from sources - OK (needs Java 7, not 8 due to javadoc issues
-
>> not a blocker)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Issues Fixed - OK
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> spot checked licenses and notices - OK
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> from binary distribution, ran adjust example paths, and document
>> analyzer, and
>>>>>> Java results viewer (showing new Features view) - OK
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [X] +1 OK to release
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Marshall Schor
>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message