Hss todo with embeddings, no? That would contract in Martin mail because he wrote "PRs around "embeddings" should for now live and be maintained in opennlp-addons.“.
Gruß Richard > Am 01.09.2026 um 14:33 schrieb Kristian Rickert <[email protected]>: > > Quick clarification: > > In the core/addons thread, Martin wrote that OPENNLP-1885, OPENNLP-1893, > OPENNLP-1909, and possibly OPENNLP-1894 should fit in core, and that he > wanted to put effort into them so M6 could mature. > > The M6 proposal includes OPENNLP-1893, OPENNLP-1909, and OPENNLP-1894, but > not OPENNLP-1885. Since the two messages were posted about a minute apart, > I suspect they may have crossed? > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 3:12 AM Richard Zowalla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Subject: [DISCUSS] 3.0.0-M6 release >> >> Hi all, >> >> M5 went out on 2026-07-21, so we're about six weeks out and main has >> accumulated ~30 commits since. I'd like to cut 3.0.0-M6 rather than let >> that pile grow further and we have a target around 08/18. >> >> What's already on main since M5: >> >> - OPENNLP-1888 Document annotation container with typed, offset-anchored >> layers (#1182). This is the biggest one and the one several other PRs >> build on, so getting it into users' hands early matters. >> - OPENNLP-1903 BeamSearch: chain nodes instead of per-candidate Sequence >> copies (#1205) >> - OPENNLP-1906 sentence detector abbreviation veto was quadratic in >> document length (#1208) >> - OPENNLP-1904 / -1905 default-locale case folding breaking Morfologik >> lookup and lemmatizer models (#1206, #1207) >> - OPENNLP-1922 ReDoS / stack exhaustion in the RegexNameFinderFactory >> EMAIL and URL patterns (#1250) >> - OPENNLP-1899 hardened SymSpell deserialization (#1197) >> - OPENNLP-1902 cached models verified against their SHA-512 checksum >> (#1239) >> - OPENNLP-1900 documented and published security model (#1198) >> - OPENNLP-1913 / -1915 Maven Wrapper in the source release, mvnw.cmd >> line endings (#1229, #1231) >> >> That's already a reasonable milestone on its own. On top of that I'd >> propose we try to land these four before we cut: >> >> 1. OPENNLP-1921 Paragraph normalizer for Gutenberg-style and Markdown >> text (#1249, tusharsaini18899). Approved already, small, and it slots >> into the normalizer chain we cleaned up in OPENNLP-1916. >> >> 2. OPENNLP-1893 Hunspell affix dictionaries for stemming (#1190, >> krickert). Classified as core in the scope thread without objection: >> fits the existing abstractions, no new dependencies, no bundled data. >> Currently "changes requested" - if that round gets addressed I'd like >> it in M6. (#1191, krickert). >> >> 3. OPENNLP-1909 Verified installer for user-supplied third-party >> resources (#1211, krickert). Interface in core, >> concrete downloaders in the modules they need it - M6 is a good place >> to >> try that split out in practice rather than on the list. >> >> 4. OPENNLP-1894 Dictionary-based tokenization for Japanese, Korean and >> Chinese (#1191, krickert); open up for Asian language feels natural in >> a globalized world. >> >> To avoid a misunderstanding: putting something >> into a milestone is not the same as deciding it belongs in core for >> 3.0.0 final. Milestones are explicitly not API-frozen - that is what the >> M is for. If CJK tokenization or the installer ships in M6 and we later >> agree it belongs in addons, moving it before the final release is >> exactly the kind of change a milestone series is supposed to absorb. I'd >> rather we get these in front of users and collect feedback than hold a >> release while the scope thread converges. >> >> So M6 does not preempt >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/vc8mnvfp6rmr5qb2s9y6hw0zpcxm6t68 >> >> and I'd like that thread to keep running in parallel. The open questions >> there - the review bar for addons, the compatibility contract, who >> drives discoverability - are release-cadence questions for addons, not >> or a core milestone. Same for the addons cleanup and getting >> it to Maven Central: worth doing, independent of M6. >> >> If anything on the list above isn't ready, it drops from M6 and goes >> into M7 (or GA???). I'd rather cut on a date than on a feature list. >> >> Objections, additions, or things I've missed that should be in M6? >> >> Gruß >> Richard
