On 1/24/2013 11:35 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 24.01.2013 17:09, schrieb Marshall Schor:
>> On 1/24/2013 4:52 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Just another comment about the composite repository:
>>>
>>> I refrained from providing an extended composite repository, because, as I
>>> already mentioned, it is not yet officially available (or am I wrong?).
>>> However, there are also two small additional reasons: I do not believe that
>>> this rc is the last one (so that the extended composite repository would be
>>> released as it is) and my feature (should) use another category. Therefore,
>>> it
>>> should be quite independent of the other subsites.
>> My thought was that we would use the release vote for TextMarker to do the
>> switch from our previous non-P2 repo to the new P2 repo (with composite
>> repository) design :-). However, if there is a need to go ahead and release
>> the
>> new p2 update site before the textmarker release, we could do that, too (but
>> in
>> the interest of avoiding extra "churn" and work, I'd like to avoid that if we
>> could).
>
> Ah OK, no problem. I will provide the composite repository with the three
> update sites in the next RC and change the name of the vote to reflect that we
> also vote on the conposite repository.
+1
>
>> I agree your feature should likely use a new category ("TextMarker" ?). Or,
>> if
>> you think it will be just one feature, it could be added to the
>> uima-tooling-and-runtimes category.
>>
>> (We currently have 2 categories: the uima-tooling-and-runtimes, and the
>> uima-as-tooling.)
>
> Currently, there is a new category "uima-textmarker" / "Apache UIMA
> TextMarker" with one feature "UIMA TextMarker Workbench". When I think now
> about that, then we should probably have two features, one for the
> workbench/ide/tooling and one for the engine. (We can do that in the next
> release if there is a need)
+1
>
> I think it is better to have a separate update site since the code quality of
> the textmarker projects is still way behind the rest of uima. There will also
> probably be shorter release cycles. So, we do not have to touch the other
> update sites, when we release a new textmarker update site. The textmarker
> update site is already ready, thus merging would be more work now and for the
> next release.
+1. Once the composite site is setup for the textmarker subsite, it won't need
to be touched for subsequent release cycles of textmarker :-)
-Marshall
>
> Peter
>
>
>>
>> -Marshall
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23.01.2013 18:02, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> the first release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker
>>>> is
>>>> ready for voting.
>>>>
>>>> Staging repository:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-163/
>>>>
>>>> SVN tag:
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/TextMarker/tags/uimaj-textmarker-parent-2.0.0-rc1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Archive with all sources:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/TextMarker-2.0.0-rc1/uimaj-textmarker-parent-2.0.0-source-release.zip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eclipse update site:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/TextMarker-2.0.0-rc1/eclipse-update-site
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The update site only contains the UIMA TextMarker plugins and is not yet
>>>> integrated in the composite repository because the composite repository is
>>>> not yet officially released.
>>>>
>>>> Binaries and sources:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/TextMarker-2.0.0-rc1/src_bin
>>>>
>>>> The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
>>>> They can also be found here:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As it is the first release, the report contains all fixed issues.
>>>>
>>>> Documentation (pdf file):
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/TextMarker-2.0.0-rc1/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please vote on release:
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 OK to release
>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>
>
>
