Hi,
On 08.01.2013 00:34, Marshall Schor wrote:
I have a basic question about the approach, which is using composite update
sites, and whether or not we need composites.
It looks like the current build in uimaj-eclipse-update-site builds the update
site with p2 additional metadata (the files artifacts.xml and content.xml). If
these were added to the existing eclipse-update-site, would that be sufficient?
And, is there a way to have the build process for the content / artifacts
include the older versions of the plugins & features?
I don't know and I haven't tried it yet. However, Steven has indicated
that this will probably won't work:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2475?focusedCommentId=13484857&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13484857
I think that ought to be possible, and if so, we could have a simpler process,
with just one update site, instead of composites. This would also avoid the
version naming issue I raised earlier re: naming and versioning the (multiple)
composite sites.
Do we have to increment the version at all? ... since nothing is
replaced, but only extended.
I cannot provide a good/clean solution for the versioning problem, but I
personally prefer a solution based on a composite repository. I have the
feeling that adding new update site, for example for the TextMarker
release, would be easier and cleaner because we do not have to touch the
other update sites. We would just add another folder if a new release is
done (which is also true if we create a separate update site for uima-as)
Without providing any arguments, I also think that switching the build
process for the update sites to Tycho might be a good idea.
Anyways, that is just my opinion and I will not argue against a solution
based on only one update site.
Of course, it's quite possible that I'm missing something in my (limited)
understanding of everything :-)
(same here)
Best,
Peter
-Marshall
On 1/7/2013 11:26 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
ok - I'll take a run at doing the things I mentioned :-)
-Marshall
On 1/7/2013 8:54 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
Hi,
I want to push this issue a bit.
What do we need to change for a new vote?
Marshall, do you want to restructure the update sites in SVN?
Best,
Peter
On 19.12.2012 14:17, Peter Klügl wrote:
Hi,
On 19.12.2012 06:27, Marshall Schor wrote:
hi,
I'm just now having a chance to look at this (sorry for the delay).
Some initial questions:
As part of this update, the UIMA SVN has a new top-level folder, parallel with
uimaj, uima-as, etc., called eclipse-packagings.
I noticed this folder is missing the normal trunk/tags/branches subfolders. It
would seem to me that we should have those, and when a new packaging is
done, it
would have a version, and be "tagged", like a release.
I realize it may not be considered a release (because it's just a re-packaging
of the already released Jars) but it still seems to me that we should have a
trunk and a tags for this, and tag what we promote out.
Another question: There's a pom at the top level of the folder
eclipse-packagings. It says its for artifact "eclipse-packagings", and has a
version number of "4".
I would think it would have a version number of "1", since it's the first
version being released.
I agree on all points. One thing I want to mention: We need some strategy for
the version number as this packaging will probably contain releases with
different version numbers, e.g., uima-2.4.0 and hopefully uima-textmarker-2.0.0
Therefore the number will be increased with asynchronous releases.
Peter
More later...
-Marshall
On 11/29/2012 11:31 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
Hi,
this vote is about replacing the current update site with a composite
repository, which essentially contains the same artifacts as before.
We discussed in UIMA-2475 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2475)
that the update site of Apache UIMA is not compatible with p2 repositories.
This complicates, for example, the development of bundles built with Tycho.
The result of the discussion is right now a composite repository, which refers
to two update sites. The first one is exactly the currently published update
site (legacy) and the second one is a p2 repository (uima-2.4.0) containing
the eclipse bundles of the 2.4.0 release. Note that these artifacts are
provided twice.
The new update site (composite repository) is here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/eclipse-packagings/eclipse-update-site
Please vote to approve this release:
[ ] +1 Approve the release
[ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
[ ] 0 Don't care
PS: As this is essentially not a new release, I skipped most/all parts
mentioned in http://uima.apache.org/release.html
