+1

-- Michael

On 1/11/2010 5:18 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> This build keeps the uimacpp and sandbox components from the previous release
> candidate (the download site on people.apache.org/~schor has hard links to the
> previous artifacts - so they are guaranteed to be identical).
> 
> We've had a few sanity checks for the RC9 build, including installing the
> Eclipse plugins via the RC9 update site on both linux and windows, and running
> downloading & installing the base uima and uima-as binary components and 
> running
> the installation verification tests - and everything looks good.
> 
> 
> This build consists of 4 major components: the core UIMA framework
> (uimaj), the C++ enablement (uimacpp), the Asynchronous Scaleout
> component (uima-as) and a set of annotators and other add-ons (sandbox).
> 
> These have been through more than 3 months of validation and testing (counting
> the previous release candidates).  The build process was strengthened to 
> include
> running RAT (the Release Audit tool) automatically and verifying no RAT issues
> are found (except for the uimacpp part, where it is still run and verified
> manually).
> 
> The release artifacts are available on
> http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-RC9/
> 
> These artifacts include a partial version of the Eclipse Update Site for
> the Eclipse plugins, but is complete for the 2.3.0 release.
> 
> The release is digitally signed by Marshall Schor for all the components
> except for the C++ component, which is signed by Edward Epstein.
> 
> No new export control issues are needed for the components; only the uima-as
> component continues to be classified as 5D002 because it includes Apache
> ActiveMQ which is so classified (see http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/ )
> 
> Please vote on approving this release.  This vote is for all 4
> components, together. After the UIMA committers vote, we will ask the
> IPMC to vote.
> 
> [ ] +1 Release RC9, it's ready
> [ ] -1 Don't release yet because of these issues which need to be
> addressed first: ...
> 
> --Marshall
> 
> 

Reply via email to