Am 04.02.2013 18:17, schrieb Marshall Schor:
On 2/4/2013 5:21 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
A short summary of my reviewing:
Tested TextMarker Workbench (Win7 64bit, Eclipse 3.7.2)
- checked update site (uimaj and textmarker-2.0.0) and license
(textmarker-2.0.0)
- tested launch, explain, testing and query functionality
Can someone test the Workbench with other OS? I heard that the layout of the
query view is broken in other OS, but I cannot reproduce it. It should look
like Figure 3.13 in the documentation.
Tested textmarker-core.jar integration in maven project
textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
- jira-report.html is completely localized ("JIRA-Bericht" instead of
"JIRA-Report")
- all issues are only resolved (not closed)
- license and notice are OK
textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0.jar and
textmarker-eclipse-feature-2.0.0-sources.jar
- additional license.txt in root (needed for Eclipse)
- icons mentioned in NOTICE, but package contains no icons
I noticed that the additional license.txt doesn't match the LICENSE in the
META-INF spot. It would be better to only have one. Are you sure the version
of this at the top level is needed by Eclipse? (Other features we have, e.g.
uimaj-eclipse-feature-tools_2.4.0.jar, don't have a license.txt file at the top
level.)
The License.txt file is an externalized version of the license in
Eclipse covering all bundled plugins. I think there is a spot in Eclipse
where the user can take a look at the license after the feature is
installed. The license in META-INF is that one for the feature.jar. The
name "License.txt" is maybe missleading and can be changed (there is a
pointer in the feature.xml).
Summarizing, there is a difference between the click-though license
(update site) and this one, which can be provided in html. At least,
this is how I understood it.
Should I rename it to, e.g., "BundleLicense.txt"?
Peter
textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0.jar
- contains templates/release-notes.vm (should not be there?)
- META-INF/ contains additional files LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt with default
content.
However, the files LICENSE and NOTICE are OK
textmarker-ep-engine-2.0.0-sources.jar
- NOTICE file contains mention of additional libraries.
However, LICENSE is OK.
tools.textmarker.book.pdf
- footer contains wrong product (says "UIMA 2.0.0")
Are those problems blockers?
Best,
Peter
On 01.02.2013 14:15, Peter Klügl wrote:
Hi,
the third release candidate of the sandbox project Apache UIMA TextMarker is
ready for voting. This vote also includes our new composite repository.
Staging repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-192/
SVN tag:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/tags/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3
Composite repository with three update sites: uimaj, uima-as and
textmarker-2.0.0:
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/eclipse-update-site
The issues fixed are in the RELEASE_NOTES.html in the src/bin packages.
They can also be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%222.0.0TextMarker%22%20AND%20component%20%3D%20TextMarker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
ONLY FOR REVIEWING:
Documentation (pdf file):
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/tools.textmarker.book.pdf
Archive with all sources (also present in the staging repository):
http://people.apache.org/~pkluegl/uima-releases/textmarker-2.0.0-rc3/textmarker-2.0.0-source-release.zip
Please vote on release:
[ ] +1 OK to release
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
Thanks.
Peter
