I know I voted +1, but I wonder if it is reasonable to create a new RC, which includes: UIMA-3628 Loading scripts/descriptors in Ruta with incorrect paths UIMA-3627 Replace old screenshot in Ruta documentation UIMA-3569 Allow extensions for complete block constructs in Ruta UIMA-3622 Formatter in Ruta editor duplicates declare keywords UIMA-3621 Improve license/notice files in Ruta
It's probably better to release something that is cleaner and more stable... Best, Peter Am 17.02.2014 10:33, schrieb Peter Klügl: > Hi, > > Am 15.02.2014 22:51, schrieb Marshall Schor: >> Verified signatures >> verify signatures / md5 / sha1 in repository - ruta core -OK. (Got Martin's >> key >> from mit pgp server) >> verify signatures for source-release >> >> The verification says Martin's key is not part of a trust ring - I would >> recommend cross-signing your key by those physically near you :-) > Yes, we already talked about that :-) > >> Checked issues fixed - looks ok >> >> Did a build from sources - OK >> >> compared sources / svn tag - OK >> >> I installed the ruta plugins into a fresh 4.3.1 Eclipse - OK. I did this >> trick: I first "added" the main UIMA eclipse update site >> (http://www.apache.org/dist/uima/eclipse-update-site), but I didn't install >> anything. Then I put in the RUTA site, and left the box checked to have >> install >> contact all the sites when looking for other artifacts; the install process >> then >> contacted the main UIMA site for the plugins it needed - worked like a charm >> :-) >> >> I noticed that some but not all of the internal projects within the examples >> folder (example-project, extensions-project, TextRulerExample) have their own >> license/notice - which can be a maintenance issue - for example, these have >> a 2013 >> end date in the Notice part. Normally, the License/Notice files are put at >> the >> top level of a distribution; I'm not sure why they're here. > I will create an issue for the notice/license problems you found. > > The projects are Ruta projects and are not built with maven. They can be > checked out from the scm, and if build, there will be no notice/license > file otherwise. > > >> The NOTICE file in many places has duplicate info for creative commons that's >> also part of license file. Normally any information that's already in the >> License file should not be also duplicated in the Notices file. The Notices >> file is for things which are not part of the license terms, but need to be >> present (such as copyrights). See >> >> https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple >> >> where it says, in part: >> However, elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD >> and MIT licenses need not be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave >> those >> notices in their original locations. > Is it possible that the best practice has changed somehow? I am quite > sure that I had to add the notice because of the license. > > Peter >
