headers
Jörn Kottmann (JIRA | 1 Dec 10:31
Picon
Favicon

[jira] Updated: (UIMA-1668) Update sample descriptor for cas editor test UI_009


     [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-1668?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Jörn Kottmann updated UIMA-1668:
--------------------------------

    Fix Version/s:     (was: 2.3)

defer past 2.3.0, I did the test slightly different and it seemed to work.

> Update sample descriptor for cas editor test UI_009
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: UIMA-1668
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-1668
>             Project: UIMA
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: CasEditor
>    Affects Versions: 2.3
>            Reporter: Jörn Kottmann
>            Assignee: Jörn Kottmann
>
> The UI_009 test depends on an AE descriptor which uses the Regex annotator from the examples project,
> tough this dependencies was removed from the uima eclipse runtime project.
> The test should be updated to use a dummy AE which is already part of the cas editor.

--

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jukka Zitting | 1 Dec 12:28
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Release candidate 3 of 2.3.0 is now available

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@...> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> It should always be possible to recreate all the binaries from the
>> source package. See the last paragraph of
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what.
>
> We were aware of this, and do a "build from the source distribution"
> test - and the builds "work" but it is possible that we've missed
> something here.

OK, cool.

I digged a bit deeper into uimaj-distr and I think I now better
understand how the release package gets built. Everything seems OK
there, but I wonder if it wasn't easier to simply package an export of
the svn tag. Maintaining different svn and release layouts is quite
prone to errors.

BR,

Jukka Zitting
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Marshall Schor | 1 Dec 15:37

Question on License files

We have had a practice of having different licenses for the "source" and
"bin" distribution.  The source distribution, consisting (usually) of
just the sources in SVN, has just the Apache license, typically.

The "bin" distribution has collected licenses beyond this, corresponding
to the various licenses of the additional "jars" being distributed. 

There is also a "top level" license, in SVN, which is a file at the same
svn level as all the projects in a particular entity (such as the
Sandbox, uimaj, uima-as, etc.).  These are currently not done
consistently - some copy the "binary" distribution, others the source. 

Should we be doing it this way, or just keeping the one license
associated with the Binary distribution?

-Marshall
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Marshall Schor | 1 Dec 16:02

Re: Release candidate 3 of 2.3.0 is now available


Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@...> wrote:
>   
>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>     
>>> It should always be possible to recreate all the binaries from the
>>> source package. See the last paragraph of
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what.
>>>       
>> We were aware of this, and do a "build from the source distribution"
>> test - and the builds "work" but it is possible that we've missed
>> something here.
>>     
>
> OK, cool.
>
> I digged a bit deeper into uimaj-distr and I think I now better
> understand how the release package gets built. Everything seems OK
> there, but I wonder if it wasn't easier to simply package an export of
> the svn tag. Maintaining different svn and release layouts is quite
> prone to errors.
>   

I agree, it would be easier.  I don't recall at the moment why we had a
different approach at first, but it's probably worth revisiting that
decision.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Jörn Kottmann | 1 Dec 16:21
Picon

Re: Release candidate 3 of 2.3.0 is now available

Marshall Schor wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@...> wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> It should always be possible to recreate all the binaries from the
>>>> source package. See the last paragraph of
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what.
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> We were aware of this, and do a "build from the source distribution"
>>> test - and the builds "work" but it is possible that we've missed
>>> something here.
>>>     
>>>       
>> OK, cool.
>>
>> I digged a bit deeper into uimaj-distr and I think I now better
>> understand how the release package gets built. Everything seems OK
>> there, but I wonder if it wasn't easier to simply package an export of
>> the svn tag. Maintaining different svn and release layouts is quite
>> prone to errors.
>>   
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Marshall Schor (JIRA | 1 Dec 16:26
Picon
Favicon

[jira] Created: (UIMA-1687) correct top-level svn license/notice files

correct top-level svn license/notice files
------------------------------------------

                 Key: UIMA-1687
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-1687
             Project: UIMA
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: Async Scaleout, Core Java Framework, Sandbox
            Reporter: Marshall Schor
            Priority: Minor

Top level license and notice files should correspond to the "source" license/notice files

--

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Jukka Zitting | 1 Dec 16:42
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Question on License files

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@...> wrote:
> Should we be doing it this way, or just keeping the one license
> associated with the Binary distribution?

There is no one correct way to do this. I personally prefer to have a
license file only cover material that's actually included in the
associated package, but such accuracy requires quite a bit of license
tracking for a complex project. Having a single license file that
covers both source and binary packages is easier to manage.

BR,

Jukka Zitting
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marshall Schor | 1 Dec 17:17

Redistributing javax.jms.xxx and javax.management.j2ee.xxx classes

Active MQ redistributes these classes, which seem to be part of the
standard Sun Java release for J2EE.

We, in turn, for uima-as, redistribute the main
apache-activemq-4.1.1.jar, which in turn, contains these javax...
classes, so uima-as is redistributing these.

I'm having trouble finding out any licensing information for this, other
than the main Sun Java license, which seems to prohibit redistribution.

I will continue looking, but any info on this from others would be
appreciated.

-Marshall
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Marshall Schor | 1 Dec 17:19

Re: Release candidate 3 of 2.3.0 is now available


Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>  
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@...> wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>          
>>>>> It should always be possible to recreate all the binaries from the
>>>>> source package. See the last paragraph of
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what.
>>>>>               
>>>> We were aware of this, and do a "build from the source distribution"
>>>> test - and the builds "work" but it is possible that we've missed
>>>> something here.
>>>>           
>>> OK, cool.
>>>
>>> I digged a bit deeper into uimaj-distr and I think I now better
>>> understand how the release package gets built. Everything seems OK
>>> there, but I wonder if it wasn't easier to simply package an export of
>>> the svn tag. Maintaining different svn and release layouts is quite
>>> prone to errors.
>>>       
>>
>> I agree, it would be easier.  I don't recall at the moment why we had a
>> different approach at first, but it's probably worth revisiting that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marshall Schor | 1 Dec 17:33

Re: Redistributing javax.jms.xxx and javax.management.j2ee.xxx classes

I posted a question about this on the ActiveMQ users-list.  -Marshall

Marshall Schor wrote:
> Active MQ redistributes these classes, which seem to be part of the
> standard Sun Java release for J2EE.
>
> We, in turn, for uima-as, redistribute the main
> apache-activemq-4.1.1.jar, which in turn, contains these javax...
> classes, so uima-as is redistributing these.
>
> I'm having trouble finding out any licensing information for this, other
> than the main Sun Java license, which seems to prohibit redistribution.
>
> I will continue looking, but any info on this from others would be
> appreciated.
>
> -Marshall
>
>
>
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane