Re: Next release
+1 for 1.7 Il giorno lun 7 nov 2016 alle 19:27 William Colen ha scritto: > +1 for 1.7 > > William > > 2016-11-07 16:22 GMT-02:00 Joern Kottmann : > > > I am also in favor of 1.7. > > > > Jörn > > > > On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 18:01 +, Russ, Daniel (NIH/CIT) [E] wrote: > > > Also the lemmatizer has significantly changed. I vote 1.7 > > > > > > On 11/7/16, 12:59 PM, "Joern Kottmann" wrote: > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > since our last release it has been a while and we received quite > > > a few > > > changes which would be nice to get released. > > > > > > There are still some open Jira issues, but mostly smaller things > > > that > > > can be wrapped up rather quickly. > > > > > > Is there anything important missing which should go into the next > > > release? Otherwise I think we should also aim for more frequent > > > released and just make one again early next year, with all the > > > stuff we > > > might miss out now. > > > > > > We took in a patch - as part of OPENNLP-830 - to replace our > > > self-made > > > hash table with the java.util.HashMap. This change is not > > > backward > > > compatible for folks who extend AbstractModel. > > > > > > Should we go with 1.6.1 as a next version or should we make 1.7.0 > > > to > > > reflect that? > > > > > > Previously we only had backward incompatible changes in versions > > > which > > > bumped by the second number. Maybe that is better choice. It will > > > probably break some peoples code when they update. > > > > > > We also have lots of deprecated API still in OpenNLP, should we > > > try to > > > remove as much as possible of it now? > > > > > > Jörn > > > > > > > > >
Re: Next release
+1 for 1.7 William 2016-11-07 16:22 GMT-02:00 Joern Kottmann : > I am also in favor of 1.7. > > Jörn > > On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 18:01 +, Russ, Daniel (NIH/CIT) [E] wrote: > > Also the lemmatizer has significantly changed. I vote 1.7 > > > > On 11/7/16, 12:59 PM, "Joern Kottmann" wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > since our last release it has been a while and we received quite > > a few > > changes which would be nice to get released. > > > > There are still some open Jira issues, but mostly smaller things > > that > > can be wrapped up rather quickly. > > > > Is there anything important missing which should go into the next > > release? Otherwise I think we should also aim for more frequent > > released and just make one again early next year, with all the > > stuff we > > might miss out now. > > > > We took in a patch - as part of OPENNLP-830 - to replace our > > self-made > > hash table with the java.util.HashMap. This change is not > > backward > > compatible for folks who extend AbstractModel. > > > > Should we go with 1.6.1 as a next version or should we make 1.7.0 > > to > > reflect that? > > > > Previously we only had backward incompatible changes in versions > > which > > bumped by the second number. Maybe that is better choice. It will > > probably break some peoples code when they update. > > > > We also have lots of deprecated API still in OpenNLP, should we > > try to > > remove as much as possible of it now? > > > > Jörn > > > > >
Re: Next release
I am also in favor of 1.7. Jörn On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 18:01 +, Russ, Daniel (NIH/CIT) [E] wrote: > Also the lemmatizer has significantly changed. I vote 1.7 > > On 11/7/16, 12:59 PM, "Joern Kottmann" wrote: > > Hello all, > > since our last release it has been a while and we received quite > a few > changes which would be nice to get released. > > There are still some open Jira issues, but mostly smaller things > that > can be wrapped up rather quickly. > > Is there anything important missing which should go into the next > release? Otherwise I think we should also aim for more frequent > released and just make one again early next year, with all the > stuff we > might miss out now. > > We took in a patch - as part of OPENNLP-830 - to replace our > self-made > hash table with the java.util.HashMap. This change is not > backward > compatible for folks who extend AbstractModel. > > Should we go with 1.6.1 as a next version or should we make 1.7.0 > to > reflect that? > > Previously we only had backward incompatible changes in versions > which > bumped by the second number. Maybe that is better choice. It will > probably break some peoples code when they update. > > We also have lots of deprecated API still in OpenNLP, should we > try to > remove as much as possible of it now? > > Jörn > >
Re: Next release
I’m fine with calling it 1.7.0. ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Principal Data Scientist, Engineering Administrative Office (3010) Manager, Open Source Projects Formulation and Development Office (8212) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 180-503E, Mailstop: 180-502 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ ++ On 11/7/16, 9:59 AM, "Joern Kottmann" wrote: Hello all, since our last release it has been a while and we received quite a few changes which would be nice to get released. There are still some open Jira issues, but mostly smaller things that can be wrapped up rather quickly. Is there anything important missing which should go into the next release? Otherwise I think we should also aim for more frequent released and just make one again early next year, with all the stuff we might miss out now. We took in a patch - as part of OPENNLP-830 - to replace our self-made hash table with the java.util.HashMap. This change is not backward compatible for folks who extend AbstractModel. Should we go with 1.6.1 as a next version or should we make 1.7.0 to reflect that? Previously we only had backward incompatible changes in versions which bumped by the second number. Maybe that is better choice. It will probably break some peoples code when they update. We also have lots of deprecated API still in OpenNLP, should we try to remove as much as possible of it now? Jörn
Re: Next release
Also the lemmatizer has significantly changed. I vote 1.7 On 11/7/16, 12:59 PM, "Joern Kottmann" wrote: Hello all, since our last release it has been a while and we received quite a few changes which would be nice to get released. There are still some open Jira issues, but mostly smaller things that can be wrapped up rather quickly. Is there anything important missing which should go into the next release? Otherwise I think we should also aim for more frequent released and just make one again early next year, with all the stuff we might miss out now. We took in a patch - as part of OPENNLP-830 - to replace our self-made hash table with the java.util.HashMap. This change is not backward compatible for folks who extend AbstractModel. Should we go with 1.6.1 as a next version or should we make 1.7.0 to reflect that? Previously we only had backward incompatible changes in versions which bumped by the second number. Maybe that is better choice. It will probably break some peoples code when they update. We also have lots of deprecated API still in OpenNLP, should we try to remove as much as possible of it now? Jörn
Next release
Hello all, since our last release it has been a while and we received quite a few changes which would be nice to get released. There are still some open Jira issues, but mostly smaller things that can be wrapped up rather quickly. Is there anything important missing which should go into the next release? Otherwise I think we should also aim for more frequent released and just make one again early next year, with all the stuff we might miss out now. We took in a patch - as part of OPENNLP-830 - to replace our self-made hash table with the java.util.HashMap. This change is not backward compatible for folks who extend AbstractModel. Should we go with 1.6.1 as a next version or should we make 1.7.0 to reflect that? Previously we only had backward incompatible changes in versions which bumped by the second number. Maybe that is better choice. It will probably break some peoples code when they update. We also have lots of deprecated API still in OpenNLP, should we try to remove as much as possible of it now? Jörn
Re: new tool training
I also opened a Jira now for the refactoring effort: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENNLP-880 Jörn On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Joern Kottmann wrote: > On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 12:58 +, Russ, Daniel (NIH/CIT) [E] wrote: > > Hi Jörn, > >Currently, GIS is a wrapper for the GISTrainer, which ironically > > is NOT an EventTrainer. There are several ways to handle this. > > > > First, don’t touch GIS. This is the class that people know best. It > > is easy to use if you use the parameter hard coded in the class. We > > can make GISTrainer an Event trainer and refactor it appropriately to > > handle parameters in the map. > > > > Second, refactor GIS, but keep the static methods in the code. This > > allows user to keep their code working. > > > > Third, refactor GIS and deprecate the static methods. > > > > I don’t see any value to the GIS class other than an Adapter. My > > vote would be the fix the original problem of GISTrainer NOT being an > > event trainer. > > > I think we are lucky that GISTrainer is not a public class, so that > allows us to modify it as we need. I agree with you, we should make it > an EventTrainer. > > The GIS class should probably just be deprecated and then removed > later. > > Regards, > Jörn >
