On 11/25/2013 4:16 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho (JIRA) wrote: > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3452?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13831911#comment-13831911 > ] > > Richard Eckart de Castilho commented on UIMA-3452: > -------------------------------------------------- > > May UIMA should follow that example ;)
Yes, it should, I think, but It didn't follow that example for historical reasons... (discussed on this mailing list a long time ago, i think). At this point it's not clear there's enough advantage to switching this to compensate for (potentially) breaking current user scripts. For new things being released, there's much less of an existing user community impact issue (obviously :-) ) - so we should follow current packaging conventions, I think. -Marshall > >> DUCCs jars should include a version number >> ------------------------------------------ >> >> Key: UIMA-3452 >> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3452 >> Project: UIMA >> Issue Type: Improvement >> Components: DUCC >> Affects Versions: 1.0-Ducc >> Reporter: Jerry Cwiklik >> Assignee: Jerry Cwiklik >> >> Seems like DUCC follows the wrong example set by UIMA which is not to >> include version number in a jar name. Most Apache projects follow a >> convention which includes the version number. Modify poms to append a >> version number. Change CLI pom to name jars with versions. > > > -- > This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA > (v6.1#6144) >
