If there aren't any objections, I will plan to make a 2.1.1 RC1 and start
the release vote this week with what's currently in the main branch.

It looks like the only outstanding PR is to add logging and it will be good
for a 2.2.0 release.

Thanks,
Jeff


On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 1:51 PM Bruno Kinoshita <ki...@apache.org> wrote:

> Good point on the breaking changes. Maybe a 2.2 with an introductory
> paragraph in the announcement email & in the changelog about these breaking
> changes?
>
> Cheers
> Bruno
>
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 18:49, Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > I am a big +1 for a release.
> >
> > There are some (minor) method signature in it (correcting typos,
> > removing methods, changing visibility, ...), so it won't be a drop-in
> > replacement for some users as they need to adjust code.
> >
> > If we are fine to ship these changes in a patch version (and not in a
> > new minor version), we can go with 2.1.1
> >
> > Gruß
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, dem 11.01.2023 um 10:29 -0500 schrieb Jeff Zemerick:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Since the last release (2.1.0) back in November, we have had 56
> > > closed Jira
> > > tickets. Scrolling through them, I see lots of improvements to
> > > documentation, Javadocs, tests, code quality, refactoring, and a few
> > > minor
> > > fixes.
> > >
> > > Because I don't see any new features, I would like to propose a
> > > release
> > > vote for OpenNLP 2.1.1. I'm super excited that the project is in a
> > > position
> > > to consider another release and a big thanks to everyone who
> > > contributed!
> > >
> > > If I'm overlooking anything that would warrant a 2.2.0 release
> > > instead of
> > > 2.1.1 please let me know! Here's the Jira query for the current
> > > changes in
> > > 2.1.1:
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENNLP-1320?jql=project%20%3D%20OPENNLP%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.1%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
> > >
> > > Let me know what you think!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jeff
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to