+ 1 to move to Java 6 or Java 7 (or Java 8, GA due in mid-March). Here's my rationale (which will probably expose some of my ignorance about the Ruta details :-) ):
Ruta is an Eclispe workbench. This means that the way you use it is to run Eclipse, and then Ruta runs "within it". [If Ruta is a thing which is used via being embedded into other systems, then the argument doesn't apply]. So, forcing a dependency on Java 7 or 8 means you have to run just one app, namely, Eclipse, on that Java. And Eclipse runs fine on Java 8 (candidates) already :-). So it's unlikely that will be much of an issue for your customers. This is in contrast to other deployments of UIMA things, where they're more likely (possibly) integrated into other systems, and those systems would need (a lot of testing- investment) to move to more recent versions of Java. -Marshall On 1/10/2014 7:04 AM, Peter Klügl wrote: > I know we already have talked about the strategy of the required java > version, but I think I have seen that ducc depends on java 6. > > I would like to move ruta also to java 6 since I could really need some > methods only available in java 6. > > Opinions? > > Peter > > Am 10.01.2014 12:29, schrieb Peter Klügl: >> Btw, Martin volunteered as release manager for the upcoming ruta release >> if nobody objects. >> >> Peter >> >> Am 07.01.2014 19:08, schrieb Martin Toepfer: >>> +1 for "2.2.0" because there will be several improvements in the next >>> release. >>> >>>> Martin >>>> +1 for 2nd digit. Last digit be minor features and bug fixes. >>>> >>>> I usually update the 2nd digit by default when I do >>>> releases and reserve the last digit for shoving in intermediate >>>> maintenance revisions of the last release. >>>> >>>> -- Richard >>>> >>>> On 07.01.2014, at 13:17, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 to having the 2nd digit increment if there are more than minor >>>>> changes, >>>>> especially if some of those changes might require some user action. >>>>> >>>>> -Marshall >>>>> On 1/7/2014 5:13 AM, Peter Klügl wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I wonder if the next version should be 2.2.0 instead of 2.1.1 since >>>>>> the >>>>>> new import syntax and functionality is not a small change and the >>>>>> improvements in UIMA-2332 will maybe have a obvious impact for the >>>>>> users. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any opinions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter >
