On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:58 PM, "Chen, Pei" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In the meantime, I believe you can manually type in 0.4.0-SNAPSHOT when it
>> prompts you for the new version during the release process.
> 
> Yes, we can certainly work around it for now.  But, it's generally not good 
> practice for prod to have a dependency on a dev area that could potentially 
> change anytime.

Yeah, I agree.

> It looks like it hasn't been updated since 2011-09-30.  Would it be possible 
> to formally cut the 0.4.0 release of clearparser while we look into ClearNLP?

You're going to have to ask Jinho. I've already asked him so many times that 
I've given up on getting a final release of ClearParser.

Steve

> 
> --Pei
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steven Bethard [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 5:26 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: com.googlecode.clearparser:clearparser:jar:0.4.0-SNAPSHOT
>> 
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 10:25 PM, "Chen, Pei" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> I was trying to deploy a 3.0.0 release candidate on to the Nexus staging
>> area for preview, but it validates against SNAPSHOT dependencies.
>>> Does anyone know the released version of
>> com.googlecode.clearparser:clearparser that we could use?
>> 
>> Jinho never made a final release of ClearParser, so we're stuck with the 
>> 0.4.0-
>> SNAPSHOT until we start using his new ClearNLP instead of ClearParser.
>> 
>> In the meantime, I believe you can manually type in 0.4.0-SNAPSHOT when it
>> prompts you for the new version during the release process.
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>>> 
>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-release-
>> plugin:2.3:prepare (default-cli) on project ctakes: Can't release project 
>> due to
>> non released dependencies :
>>> [ERROR] com.googlecode.clearparser:clearparser:jar:0.4.0-
>> SNAPSHOT:compile
>>> [ERROR] in project 'Apache cTAKES Dependency Parser'
>> (org.apache.ctakes:ctakes-dependency-parser:jar:3.0.0-incubating-
>> SNAPSHOT)
>>> [ERROR] -> [Help 1]
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pei
> 

Reply via email to