[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2475?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13505024#comment-13505024
]
Marshall Schor commented on UIMA-2475:
--------------------------------------
where did you push your changes to (if anywhere) - or are they just in SVN?
You are right, things need to be signed before copying to a server. Also, if
things are like a "release", they need to be voted on. We usually do this as
part of general project releases (for example, UIMA-SDK and UIMA-AS), and then
the release artifacts being voted on include the update site (signed) artifacts.
> eclipse p2 update site instead of old-style update site
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: UIMA-2475
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2475
> Project: UIMA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Eclipse plugins
> Reporter: Steven Bethard
> Assignee: Peter Klügl
> Attachments: uimaj-eclipse-update-site.zip
>
>
> The UIMA Eclipse update site (www.apache.org/dist/uima/eclipse-update-site)
> is an Eclipse 3.3 (or older) update site. Since Eclipse 3.4, the recommended
> update site layout is p2:
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox_p2_Getting_Started_for_Releng#Why_should_I_make_changes_to_adopt_p2.3F
> I've been bitten by this update site issue because old-style update sites
> make it impossible to resolve build-time dependencies when building Eclipse
> plugins:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=380438#c3
> Could the UIMA update site be modernized to the p2 layout?
--
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
