On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
The time people have to spend chasing bugs because someone doesn't
have the right version on the classpath (or possibly multiple versions
without knowing it) can be better spent on solving actual
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
The time people have to spend chasing bugs because someone doesn't
have the right version on the classpath (or possibly multiple versions
without knowing it) can be better spent on solving actual bugs,
writing documentation or implementing new features.
Or by reviewing
On 4/23/08, Adam Lally [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Among the UIMA committers, I'm the main proponent of the no version
numbers in jar names. Jar file names that change in each version
have always driven me crazy because they force users to update their
classpaths when they upgrade their UIMA
Hi Niall,
Niall Pemberton wrote:
Firstly, I'm +1 on this release. I have a few minor
comments/suggestions which you may want to consider for the next
release (or not!)
1) Theres a parent pom for apache which if you make the parent of the
uimaj pom means you don't have to duplicate the license
Thilo Goetz wrote:
snip
3) IMO its better if the jars include the version number - which they
do for the maven repo, but not the ones in the binary distro
I personally agree with you, but we had a long discussion about
this and the no version numbers in jar names faction carried
the day. I
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Marshall Schor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thilo Goetz wrote:
3) IMO its better if the jars include the version number - which they
do for the maven repo, but not the ones in the binary distro
I personally agree with you, but we had a long discussion
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 21 April 2008 17:46, Paul Fremantle wrote:
the mentors to be the
primary contacts for any podling.
+1. With 3 active mentors, you practically need no other PMC members to wake
up (let me sleep ;o) ). If you don't have 3 active mentors, then that IS a
problem
Firstly, I'm +1 on this release. I have a few minor
comments/suggestions which you may want to consider for the next
release (or not!)
1) Theres a parent pom for apache which if you make the parent of the
uimaj pom means you don't have to duplicate the license and
organization details in your
The poor UIMA guys have been trying to get this release approved for nearly
two weeks now and it still has just a single vote. Could a couple of other
IPMCers take a look and vote?
...ant
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Marshall Schor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Incubator PMC -
Thank
I'll review the release. However, I would like to see the mentors +1's
on this vote as well. The fact is that the incubator is a wide group
with disparate interests and it is incumbent on the mentors to be the
primary contacts for any podling.
Paul
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:31 AM, ant elder
On Monday 21 April 2008 17:46, Paul Fremantle wrote:
the mentors to be the
primary contacts for any podling.
+1. With 3 active mentors, you practically need no other PMC members to wake
up (let me sleep ;o) ). If you don't have 3 active mentors, then that IS a
problem of concern, and should
Hello Incubator PMC -
Thank you for your reviews of this; please do not confuse this with
another release vote just posted for the UIMA Add-on package, which is
another piece of the project, moving forward under a separate packaging
and vote.
For this vote, so far we have 1 +1 vote (only).
Folks, just a quick reminder that this vote is still
open. Please vote if you can find the time to look
at our release. Thanks.
--Thilo
Michael Baessler wrote:
The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for permission to
publish a new bug fix
release of Apache UIMA version
Looks ok to me, +1
...ant
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks, just a quick reminder that this vote is still
open. Please vote if you can find the time to look
at our release. Thanks.
--Thilo
Michael Baessler wrote:
The Apache UIMA
Is there anything else needed from the UIMA team to get this release approved?
-- Michael
Michael Baessler wrote:
That seems to be a build issue on my side. I missed a parameter when starting
the build - sorry for
that.
I just created another build from the same SVN tag and replaced the
That seems to be a build issue on my side. I missed a parameter when starting
the build - sorry for
that.
I just created another build from the same SVN tag and replaced the files for
the maven repository.
Now all seems to be correct!
-- Michael
Kevan Miller wrote:
Sources jars (e.g.
sebb wrote:
On 10/04/2008, Michael Baessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for permission to
publish a new bug fix
release of Apache UIMA version 2.2.2. This release contains bug fixes of
for release version 2.2.1
that was published in
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Michael Baessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Problem building uimaj:
1) javax.activation:activation:jar:1.0.2
Unfortunately only the POM and metadata are present in the M2 repo for
On Friday 11 April 2008, Adam Lally wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Michael Baessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Problem building uimaj:
1) javax.activation:activation:jar:1.0.2
Unfortunately only the POM
sebb wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Michael Baessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 10/04/2008, Michael Baessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for permission
to publish a new bug fix
release of Apache UIMA version 2.2.2. This release
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2008, Adam Lally wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Michael Baessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Problem building uimaj:
1) javax.activation:activation:jar:1.0.2
Unfortunately only
On 11/04/2008, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2008, Adam Lally wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Michael Baessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Problem building
sebb wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2008, Adam Lally wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Michael Baessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for permission to
publish a new bug fix
release of Apache UIMA version 2.2.2. This release contains bug fixes of for
release version 2.2.1
that was published in December 2007. For details about the fixes, please have a
look at the release
On 10/04/2008, Michael Baessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for permission to
publish a new bug fix
release of Apache UIMA version 2.2.2. This release contains bug fixes of for
release version 2.2.1
that was published in December 2007.
Sources jars (e.g. http://people.apache.org/~mbaessler/uimaj-2.2.2/05/maven/org/apache/uima/jVinci/2.2.2-incubating/jVinci-2.2.2-incubating-sources.jar)
are missing LICENSE/NOTICE files. Beyond this, I didn't see any
problems.
--kevan
On Apr 10, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
The
26 matches
Mail list logo
