Hi all, it seems, that we have consensus for 1.0.(0) - I will create a PR and raise the version accordingly.
Gruß Richard On 2024/05/29 07:19:10 Martin Wiesner wrote: > Hi all, > > +1 for option (a). > > The previous comments are absolutely valid: Models won’t be released as often > as the OpenNLP core artifacts. With this in mind, option (b) is somewhat > artificial and could even confuse the community, in case there is no „most > recent“ model release that matches the tools artifact. > > If documented accordingly, option (a) should be clear to devs and users. > > [at] Jeff: Thanks for opening LEGAL-676 > > Best > Martin > -- > > > Am 28.05.2024 um 22:19 schrieb Jeff Zemerick <jzemer...@apache.org>: > > > > I favor option (a) because we likely won't release models as frequently but > > we will have to keep track of what's compatible with what. > > > > There is a manifest file inside the model files and it contains the version > > number of OpenNLP that trained the model. It's used to check if the version > > of OpenNLP loading the model can actually use it. When we released OpenNLP > > 2.0 that check had to be changed because it was only looking for versions > > starting with 1.x. So just something to keep in mind that we might need to > > change that check. So far all models are compatible with all versions. > > > > Also, I opened a ticket with legal to see about bringing the SourceForge > > models in to make it easier to distribute them. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-676 > > > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 4:03 AM Atita Arora <atitaar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> hi, Thanks for initiating this discussion regarding the future version > >> scheme for our OpenNLP Maven module distribution. > >> Personally, I lean towards option (a) as it establishes a fresh starting > >> point for our Maven module distribution. > >> However, I'm open to hearing others' thoughts and considerations. > >> > >> Best, > >> Atita > >> > >> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 8:31 AM Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> From my point of view, we are not releasing models as often as we release > >>> opennlp-tools. > >>> And pushing a new version without having actual changes in supplied > >>> models, looks somehow odd to me. > >>> So personally, I would be in favor for having a separate versioning > >> scheme > >>> for it. > >>> > >>> Gruß > >>> Richard > >>> > >>> > >>>> Am 27.05.2024 um 21:56 schrieb Bruno Kinoshita < > >> brunodepau...@gmail.com > >>>> : > >>>> > >>>> Hi! > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for starting this! I do not have a preference for a, b, or c, as > >>>> long as it's explained/documented to users, I think they will be happy > >> to > >>>> be able to see the model in their dependency tree. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you! > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, 27 May 2024 at 16:15, Richard Zowalla <r...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> with [1] we will make a step forward in order to distrubute OpenNLP > >>> models > >>>>> via Maven Central. > >>>>> While we still need to integrate all other models, Martin (W.) raised > >>> the > >>>>> valid question about the future version scheme of our opennlp maven > >>> module > >>>>> distribution. > >>>>> > >>>>> Do we want to > >>>>> > >>>>> - (a) Start with 1.0 > >>>>> - (b) Align with the version of the opennlp-tools > >>>>> - (c) Something else > >>>>> > >>>>> Any ideas, thoughts, comments? > >>>>> > >>>>> Gruß > >>>>> Richard > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/opennlp-models/pull/1 > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
