I agree. The vote for RC2 is canceled; Peter is going to address the
problems. We plan to provide RC3 as soon as possible. I guess this will
be within one or two weeks.
Martin
Am 18.02.2014 13:58, schrieb Peter Klügl:
I know I voted +1, but I wonder if it is reasonable to create a new RC,
which includes:
UIMA-3628 Loading scripts/descriptors in Ruta with incorrect paths
UIMA-3627 Replace old screenshot in Ruta documentation
UIMA-3569 Allow extensions for complete block constructs in Ruta
UIMA-3622 Formatter in Ruta editor duplicates declare keywords
UIMA-3621 Improve license/notice files in Ruta
It's probably better to release something that is cleaner and more stable...
Best,
Peter
Am 17.02.2014 10:33, schrieb Peter Klügl:
Hi,
Am 15.02.2014 22:51, schrieb Marshall Schor:
Verified signatures
verify signatures / md5 / sha1 in repository - ruta core -OK. (Got Martin's key
from mit pgp server)
verify signatures for source-release
The verification says Martin's key is not part of a trust ring - I would
recommend cross-signing your key by those physically near you :-)
Yes, we already talked about that :-)
Checked issues fixed - looks ok
Did a build from sources - OK
compared sources / svn tag - OK
I installed the ruta plugins into a fresh 4.3.1 Eclipse - OK. I did this
trick: I first "added" the main UIMA eclipse update site
(http://www.apache.org/dist/uima/eclipse-update-site), but I didn't install
anything. Then I put in the RUTA site, and left the box checked to have install
contact all the sites when looking for other artifacts; the install process then
contacted the main UIMA site for the plugins it needed - worked like a charm :-)
I noticed that some but not all of the internal projects within the examples
folder (example-project, extensions-project, TextRulerExample) have their own
license/notice - which can be a maintenance issue - for example, these have a
2013
end date in the Notice part. Normally, the License/Notice files are put at the
top level of a distribution; I'm not sure why they're here.
I will create an issue for the notice/license problems you found.
The projects are Ruta projects and are not built with maven. They can be
checked out from the scm, and if build, there will be no notice/license
file otherwise.
The NOTICE file in many places has duplicate info for creative commons that's
also part of license file. Normally any information that's already in the
License file should not be also duplicated in the Notices file. The Notices
file is for things which are not part of the license terms, but need to be
present (such as copyrights). See
https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
where it says, in part:
However, elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD
and MIT licenses need not be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those
notices in their original locations.
Is it possible that the best practice has changed somehow? I am quite
sure that I had to add the notice because of the license.
Peter
