Hi,
Am 09.03.2017 um 20:54 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho: > Compared tag with source: OK > > Checking POMs: OK > - I don't understand why you exclude UIMAJ-Core classes in the > "enforce-compatibility" profile of Ruta. Shouldn't semver be removed after > switching to japicmp? I have to check that. > > POM check yields no changes in dependencies, skipping re-check of licenses. > > Build on OS X: OK > > Spot check signatures: OK ( and I actually have Peter's key in my keyring :) > ) > > Install from Update Site into Eclipse: OK > - Update site identifies itself as > "file:/D:/work/ruta/ruta-eclipse-update-site/target/eclipse-update-site/ruta" > - A proper name would be better I think this is the case of all of our update sites. Sould probably not too complicated to set a better name. Where do you see the path in Eclipse? > - Before being able to install Ruta, I also need to add the normal UIMA > update site. I though that update sites can refer to each other? Yes and no. After the release, we have only one update site with some subsites. We could refer to the released one in the rc subsite, but we should then remove the reference again when we release it. Thus, I would rather keep the current setup. > > Code breaks out of boxes in PDF documentation on page 26. > Indentation depth in code examples in the documentation is not always the > same. Thanks, I will fix it. Peter > No release-critical issues. > > [X] +1 OK to release > > -- Richard > >> Please vote on release: >> >> [ ] +1 OK to release >> [ ] 0 Don't care >> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ...
