sounds good to me.
________________________________________
From:
ctakes-notifications-return-414-Masanz.James=mayo....@incubator.apache.org
[ctakes-notifications-return-414-Masanz.James=mayo....@incubator.apache.org] on
behalf of Tim Miller (JIRA) [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 2:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (CTAKES-170) relation extractor has dependency on
clinical pipeilne
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-170?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13584643#comment-13584643
]
Tim Miller commented on CTAKES-170:
-----------------------------------
Sorry James for committing this so quickly, I thought the original
direction was an oversight so just fixed it without discussion.
I made a dependency graph with pen and paper this morning when maven was
complaining about a dependency cycle. My takeaway was that
relation-extractor was somehow screwing everything up by being the only
component pointing the way it was pointing.
Is it ok to leave the fix for now, and pending the results of discussion
on 165 go change it back if necessary later?
Tim
> relation extractor has dependency on clinical pipeilne
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CTAKES-170
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-170
> Project: cTAKES
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Tim Miller
> Assignee: Dmitriy Dligach
> Priority: Minor
>
> dependency should go in the other direction if it is necessary at all.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
