I don't know if we need a vote or not about skipping 2.6. I should have at least included my reasons for wanting to skip releasing a 2.6. I know I was the one originally encouraging us to keep a 2.6 release in the plan, but since then:
- I don't think it is worth the effort of resolving the issue of unbundling UMLS from cTAKES in 2.6 since 2.6 would be a one-off and it will be done differently in 3.0. - Given the amount of time it is taking to get a release out, I'd rather see all energy focused on 3.0 at this point. -- James > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-889- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bleeker, Troy > C. > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:42 AM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: RE: releases questions > > That will make a big impact on documentation. Do we need to vote on > skipping 2.6 entirely. I'd rather not assume that this was enough to > cancel the release and find out later that we needed to have it for some > reason. > > Thanks > Troy > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-886- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Masanz, James > J. > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:33 AM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: RE: releases questions > > > > We need to figure out if the UMLS license is compatible, if its not > > compatible it cannot be included. > > It's not compatible, so I suggest skipping 2.6 and I can shift focus > entirely to 3.0, which according to the release notes will have UMLS > separately downloadable. > > -- James > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-884- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jörn Kottmann > > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:16 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: releases questions > > > > On 11/19/2012 09:49 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote: > > > Mentors, > > > > > > I have a couple questions related to releases > > > > > > 1)How long should we expect for feedback on a release candidate from > > mentors? At what point is a reminder in order? > > > > I don't mind receiving a reminder off list, once in a while I need at > > least a day to respond. > > > > > There are two threads related to that question: > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ctakes-dev/201211 > > > .m > > > box/%3C924DE05C19409B438EB81DE683A942D922237B%40CHEXMBX1A.CHBOSTON.O > > > RG > > > %3E > > > > I spoke about it with Pei, this RC contains trove4j (LGPL) which is > > not compatible with the Apache license, in that state you cannot > > release it and he send some follow up mails to the list here > afterwards. > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ctakes-dev/201211 > > > .m > > > box/%3C996FC801C05DF64A84246A106FACACD002BC21%40MSGPEXCHA08A.mfad.mf > > > ro > > > ot.org%3E > > > > > > 2) Is there something else that you wait on or look for from the > > community or the release managers that has been lacking? > > > > > > 3)I haven't seen an answer to the question of "Is it a hard > > requirement that we not include the subset of UMLS that we had > > included in cTAKES 2.5 in our Apache cTAKES incubating releases?" > > > > > > We need to figure out if the UMLS license is compatible, if its not > > compatible it cannot be included. The UMLS license is not listed on > > the Apache 3rd party license page, in that case you need to post on > > legal so they can have a look. > > > > There are two ways here to get further with the UMLS problem: > > a) Send a mail to the legal list to discuss the license > > b) Exclude the UMLS dictionary from the release > > > > Jörn
