Yeah, sounds like we don't need a vote, but +1 on skipping 2.6. Steve
On Nov 21, 2012, at 7:08 PM, "Wu, Stephen T., Ph.D." <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
