Marshall Schor wrote:
Thilo Goetz wrote:
Michael Baessler wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
We should update the documentation (3 places?) which describes how to
attach javadocs, to now also mention
running those scripts to attach the source.
Do you know where exactly the places are th
Thilo Goetz wrote:
Michael Baessler wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
We should update the documentation (3 places?) which describes how to
attach javadocs, to now also mention
running those scripts to attach the source.
Do you know where exactly the places are that we need to change
Michael Baessler wrote:
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> We should update the documentation (3 places?) which describes how to
>> attach javadocs, to now also mention
>> running those scripts to attach the source.
> Do you know where exactly the places are that we need to change? I would
> like to finish
Marshall Schor wrote:
We should update the documentation (3 places?) which describes how to
attach javadocs, to now also mention
running those scripts to attach the source.
Do you know where exactly the places are that we need to change? I would
like to finish this as soon as possible so that w
> We should update the documentation (3 places?) which describes how to
> attach javadocs, to now also mention
> running those scripts to attach the source.
>
I updated the README file for the source distribution. Not sure where
else we have documentation relating to the source dist - on the
webs
Adam Lally wrote:
On 8/1/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see that issue 499 is still in reopen state. I checked in my changes
using this issue. So I think we can close them or is there anything else
we need to do?
OK with me to close it.
We should update the docume
On 8/1/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see that issue 499 is still in reopen state. I checked in my changes
> using this issue. So I think we can close them or is there anything else
> we need to do?
OK with me to close it.
-Adam
Michael Baessler wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
On 7/31/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also - the resources need to be included in the jars (they have the
message bundles, etc.).
The resource are already in the jars, so we don't need to add them in
this
Marshall Schor wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
On 7/31/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also - the resources need to be included in the jars (they have the
message bundles, etc.).
The resource are already in the jars, so we don't need to add them in
this step. Just the source f
Adam Lally wrote:
On 7/31/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also - the resources need to be included in the jars (they have the
message bundles, etc.).
The resource are already in the jars, so we don't need to add them in
this step. Just the source files need to be added.
On 7/31/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also - the resources need to be included in the jars (they have the
> message bundles, etc.).
>
The resource are already in the jars, so we don't need to add them in
this step. Just the source files need to be added.
-Adam
Adam Lally wrote:
Actually I was thinking of something perhaps even easier for the user.
What I meant was that the script would automatically add the source
files directly into the jar files in the UIMA binary distribution. So
no action would be necessary at all in Eclipse.
(To locate the bina
> Actually I was thinking of something perhaps even easier for the user.
> What I meant was that the script would automatically add the source
> files directly into the jar files in the UIMA binary distribution. So
> no action would be necessary at all in Eclipse.
>
> (To locate the binary distri
On 7/31/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't want to put words into Adam's mouth, but at least I was thinking
> that the script would just be part of our regular source distribution,
> so no separate download required. And if the script lives in the source
> distribution, it knows
Marshall Schor wrote:
> Thilo Goetz wrote:
>> Adam Lally wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/30/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Adam Lally wrote:
>> -1 to this change. What exactly is the concern here?
>>
> My main concern is what I originally said: "Don'
Thilo Goetz wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
On 7/30/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
-1 to this change. What exactly is the concern here?
My main concern is what I originally said: "Don't some companies have
issues with their people downloading
Adam Lally wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Adam Lally wrote:
-1 to this change. What exactly is the concern here?
>>> My main concern is what I originally said: "Don't some companies have
>>> issues with their people downloading source code?"
>> Does that concer
On 7/30/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is simply a matter of convenience, nothing more, nothing less. I
> don't know why other projects don't do it. Some don't have such an
> awkward project setup as we do, so it's trivial to take the binary and
> source distributions and put the
Thilo Goetz wrote:
Eddie Epstein wrote:
On 7/30/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eddie Epstein wrote:
How hard is it to create the source jars from the UIMA source distribution?
Not hard *if* you have our build env. set up (i.e., maven etc).
I'm sort
On 7/30/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Lally wrote:
> >> -1 to this change. What exactly is the concern here?
> >
> > My main concern is what I originally said: "Don't some companies have
> > issues with their people downloading source code?"
>
> Does that concern a large corpor
Thilo Goetz wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
-1 to this change. What exactly is the concern here?
My main concern is what I originally said: "Don't some companies have
issues with their people downloading source code?"
Does that concern a large corporation that some of us work
for, or
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Eddie Epstein wrote:
>>> How hard is it to create the source jars from the UIMA source distribution?
>> Not hard *if* you have our build env. set up (i.e., maven etc).
>
> I'm sort of confused. Above you said that users h
On 7/30/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eddie Epstein wrote:
> > How hard is it to create the source jars from the UIMA source distribution?
>
> Not hard *if* you have our build env. set up (i.e., maven etc).
I'm sort of confused. Above you said that users have already been
finding bu
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> How hard is it to create the source jars from the UIMA source distribution?
Not hard *if* you have our build env. set up (i.e., maven etc).
>
> Looking to the future the UIMA framework will continue to grow, and
> there will likely be a need for more differentiation in pac
How hard is it to create the source jars from the UIMA source distribution?
Looking to the future the UIMA framework will continue to grow, and
there will likely be a need for more differentiation in package
content.
Eddie
On 7/30/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Lally wrote:
>
Adam Lally wrote:
>> -1 to this change. What exactly is the concern here?
>
> My main concern is what I originally said: "Don't some companies have
> issues with their people downloading source code?"
Does that concern a large corporation that some of us work
for, or is this a known concern for
> -1 to this change. What exactly is the concern here?
My main concern is what I originally said: "Don't some companies have
issues with their people downloading source code?"
> Source code? We're an open source project, after all.
Well we do have a source release. What is the concern that le
Michael Baessler wrote:
> Michael Baessler wrote:
>> Adam Lally wrote:
>>> When checking through the Resolved issues assigned to me I noticed
>>> that one of them was the addition of jars containing our source code,
>>> as part of our binary release. I must have missed that when it went
>>> in.
>>
Adam Lally wrote:
On 7/26/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So should be add the source jars to the source release?
I don't think that is the normal Apache thing to do. On
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html it defines
source release as "a simple export fr
Thanks, Michael; nice job :-)
I'm going to update the documentation to describe in the same sections
(where you
took out info about how to attach the source) similar
sections on how to attach the javadocs which are included in the binary
distribution.
-Marshall
Michael Baessler wrote:
Mich
Michael Baessler wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
When checking through the Resolved issues assigned to me I noticed
that one of them was the addition of jars containing our source code,
as part of our binary release. I must have missed that when it went
in.
The current uimaj-2.2.0-03 does not contain
On 7/26/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So should be add the source jars to the source release?
I don't think that is the normal Apache thing to do. On
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html it defines
source release as "a simple export from the repository."
Marshall Schor wrote:
I think for developers of UIMA, they will download the source
distribution, which of course
has all the source ;-)
But the source distribution does not have the source jars, it only have
the source projects. And from my point of view it is easier
to attach source jars to a
Michael Baessler wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
When checking through the Resolved issues assigned to me I noticed
that one of them was the addition of jars containing our source code,
as part of our binary release. I must have missed that when it went
in.
The current uimaj-2.2.0-03 does not contain
Adam Lally wrote:
When checking through the Resolved issues assigned to me I noticed
that one of them was the addition of jars containing our source code,
as part of our binary release. I must have missed that when it went
in.
The current uimaj-2.2.0-03 does not contain the issue UIMA-499. That
When checking through the Resolved issues assigned to me I noticed
that one of them was the addition of jars containing our source code,
as part of our binary release. I must have missed that when it went
in.
I'm a little uneasy about this. Don't some companies have issues with
their people dow
36 matches
Mail list logo
