I vote whatever james votes =P stephen
On 11/21/12 11:15 AM, "Masanz, James J." <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
