On 8/1/2013 12:29 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: > Sounds good. > > I wonder about the UIMA versioning scheme. Since there is a three-part > versioning scheme, I'd have expected that the last digit is reserved for > bug-fix releases (like this one) and that the 2.5.0 may have been a > better name for the 2.4.1 release. How does the UIMA versioning scheme work? Here's my guess on how this works:
People by default bump up the release number by .1 (actually, doing a mvn release:prepare defaults to this). That's where it stays, unless someone gets motivated to change it to something else. We typically haven't done big jumps (like raising the 2nd digit) unless there are major changes. I do think that the 2.4.1 release had enough new stuff to merit the 2.5.0 designation, but I don't think anyone focused on that. -Marshall > -- Richard > > Am 01.08.2013 um 17:22 schrieb Marshall Schor <[email protected]>: > >> I'm thinking it would best for the UIMA users if we were to do a 2.4.2 Java >> SDK >> release soon (in the next week or so?) to fix the 7 issues that popped up >> when >> we got the 2.4.1 SDK out into the community. >> >> WDYT? >> >> The issues: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.4.2SDK%22%20AND%20project%20%3D%20UIMA >> >> -Marshall >
