I'm hoping to get a release candidate out this week. By the way- it'll be called minor 3.2.0 rather than a patch release... Due to the major changes.
Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:53 PM, "Anirban Chakraborti" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > When is the release planned. >> On 24 Jun 2014 02:11, "Masanz, James J." <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> That would be good to know. I think a good start would be to have a >> comparison from one release to the next, where when release N is built, >> some test is run using release N and using release N-1. The CPE Gui will >> show a breakdown of how long each annotator took in total for a set of >> documents. I assume we could get that information programmatically fairly >> easy. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] (Andy McMurry) [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 2:57 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: LVG Thread Safety >> >> I wonder how much cTAKES performance changes with even minor changes to >> LVG. >> >> In principle, thread safety shouldn't change the output, but even minor >> updates (LVG.2014) makes me wonder. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:58 AM, "John Green" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Nice!- >>> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Chen, Pei < >> [email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +dev@ >>>> Chris, >>>> This awesome news. Yes we'll be happy to try out the fix. >>>> Thanks again, >>>> Pei >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-151 >>>> From: Lu, Chris (NIH/NLM/LHC) [C] [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 2:54 PM >>>> To: Chen, Pei >>>> Cc: Browne, Allen (NIH/NLM/LHC) [E]; Lu, Chris (NIH/NLM/LHC) [C] >>>> Subject: RE: LVG Thread Safety >>>> Hi Pei, >>>> How are you doing? >>>> We have evaluated your request regarding to the thread safety issue on >> the SPECIALIST Lexical Tools. Bellows are the summary. Please let us know >> if you have any suggestions, comments, or questions. This SCR is a major >> source code change and, if you like, we will send you a nightly built >> version of lvg.2015 (using lvg.2014 data) in July so you can try it before >> the official NLM internal release of lvg.2015 is released (in Oct.). Please >> let us know, Thank you! >>>> 1). Static variables >>>> => Thank you (and Kim) to point out this issue. Here are how we plan to >> modify "static variables" in the Java codes: >>>> 1-a). Change static variables to final static variables (if applicable) >>>> 1-b). Change static variables to local variables (if applicable) >>>> 1-c). Keep "static String fieldSeparator_" in Lib.GlobalBehavior.java >> and use "synchronized" for the associated static methods. >>>> ð There will be too many changes for Flows APIs if we decided to >> change it to local variable. >>>> 1-d). Keep the rest of static variables under GuiTool >>>> ð Assuming users do not use GuiTool (lgt) under multi-thread >> environment. >>>> There are 88 files need to be modified for this software change request. >>>> 2) Standardize Java package namespace convention on lvg API: >>>> => There were legacy reasons that all Lvg Java codes under directory of >> Tools do not use the standard Java package convention. However, we are >> happy to make the change for your requests. >>>> There are 11 Java files of command line tools and 43 Java files of GUI >> tool need to be modified. >>>> Hope this helps. Thank you! >>>> Best Regards >>>> - Chris >> >>
