Talking to Pei, we both were meaning the same thing - build 2.6-incubating very similarly to the way 2.5 was built, with the code that we compile for cTAKES built into a single jar - in 3.0-incubating when we make more use of maven, build as separate jars. We could at that time still include a single jar too if there was interest in a single jar.
Regards, James Masanz > -----Original Message----- > From: ctakes-dev-return-309- > [email protected] [mailto:ctakes-dev-return- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Masanz, > James J. > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: cTAKES 2.6 - packaging of deliverable - was RE: [jira] [Closed] > (CTAKES-34) icTAKES.jar is missing from the .gz distributions > > > I had been thinking it would be 2.6-incubating since we are not tackling all the > maven work we could. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ctakes-dev-return-307- > > [email protected] [mailto:ctakes-dev- > return- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Chen, > Pei > > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 5:00 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: cTAKES 2.6 - packaging of deliverable - was RE: [jira] > [Closed] > > (CTAKES-34) icTAKES.jar is missing from the .gz distributions > > > > Troy, > > > > > That may be the key, "use Maven's plugin to assist in building and > > releasing". > > > James said, " the move to Apache's SVN was a big enough change that > we > > > would wait to do the maven work until some following release (after > > > 2.6)" If what James thought was true then we would use the exact > same > > build in 2.6. > > > However, is sounds like that's not true and the build process will > > > change in > > > 2.6 at the same time as it changes over to be built from the SVN > > > repository at Apache. > > > > No change here- This particular Bug Tracker item referred to a missing > file to > > an old release dating back to ~8 months ago. > > I believe that is still the plan; Create a 2.6-incubating release that > looks like > > what would have been in sourceforge (whatever zip/jar structure format > > that was in 2.x). See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-13 > > > > > So that's no problem if we have the time to put in for 2.6, great. > But > > > change means design so doesn't the question remain, "What will be > > > built?". We don't want to assume what will come out. Maybe it's so > > > simple everyone else understands it. I was thinking that delivering > to > > > developers is easy because there is no pre-build. They just download > > > from SVN and away they go. What about the zip file resulting from > the > > > 2.6 build? What will be in there? Is it option F? Will the directory > > > structure in the zip file match that of SVN? In 2.5 they do not > match. > > > > Let's get the repo and a baseline version in Apache SVN up and running > first- > > I'll ping infra again... once we have that, I think we can create > whatever > > binary executable format that is agreed upon here since this will be a > brand > > new major release with new org.apache name spaces (3.0-incubating?)... > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ctakes-dev-return-300- > > > [email protected] > > > [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-300- > > > [email protected] > > > ] On Behalf Of Chen, Pei > > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:08 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: cTAKES 2.6 - packaging of deliverable - was RE: [jira] > > > [Closed] > > > (CTAKES-34) icTAKES.jar is missing from the .gz distributions > > > > > > Note: > > > Just in case you're curious, was actually planning to use Maven's > > > plugin (Shade and Release) to assist in building and releasing... > > > > > > In case you're interested, feel free to them check out: > > > http://maven.apache.org/plugins/index.html > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chen, Pei [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:02 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: cTAKES 2.6 - packaging of deliverable - was RE: [jira] > > > [Closed] > > > (CTAKES-34) icTAKES.jar is missing from the .gz distributions > > > > > > Ditto +1 on separate jars, > > > But, I actually don't think there is any contention here. I believe > > > this was an old SF ticket that was left behind. > > > Since, icTAKES.tar.gz doesn't exist anymore, I think this Jira is a > > > moot point in my point of view so hence it was closed. > > > > > > Since we moved to Apache, I would strongly advise us to allow the > > > person who will be actually doing the work (to use Maven or not, > etc.) > > > the freedom to make this decision. > > > > > > --Pei > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Coarr, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:59 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: cTAKES 2.6 - packaging of deliverable - was RE: [jira] > > > [Closed] > > > (CTAKES-34) icTAKES.jar is missing from the .gz distributions > > > > > > My vote is to continue in the direction of the previous vote -- one > > > jar file produced for each module. This will align the development > > > (svn > > > trunk) work using either eclipse or the command line more closely > with > > > the execution of the binary release (jar only) environment. > > > > > > This will also set us up for a smooth migration to maven. > > > > > > My $0.02, > > > Matt
