2 thoughts: 1) if your component doesn't require 2.10.0, but works with a range of versions, including 2.10.0, and
- your component doesn't "include" core uima 2.10.0, then I think the version numbering can be independent. 2) I suggest we be customer-focused, and try to have our version numbering communicate useful information. So, to me, if we have a bug-fix release that doesn't change customer-facing APIs except for perhaps adding new signatures (which are very unlikely to collide with user methods) , I would treat this as a 3-rd digit increment, because that communicates best what an upgrader ought to expect. -Marshall On 5/17/2017 8:46 AM, Peter Klügl wrote: > This is maybe off-topic here... > > > Is the dependency to 2.10.0 hard/required for the uimaFIT functionality? > > I just wonder if I should plan ruta 2.7.0 instead of 2.6.1 since I also > increase the uima version. > > Do we have some best practice here at uima? Update of dependency on > minor level -> minor release? > > > (As Richard once said: there are enough numbers. I do not care at all if > I switch to minor. Maybe it should be consistent in the sub projects) > > > Peter > > > > Am 16.05.2017 um 20:14 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho: >> Hi all, >> >> this is a bugfix release (but upgrades to UIMA 2.10.0, that is why it's not >> 2.3.1): >> >> - Fixed bug: indexCovered should not return reference annotation >> - Upgrade to UIMA 2.10.0 >> >> Staging repository: >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheuima-1141 >> >> SVN tag: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/uimafit/tags/uimafit-2.4.0 >> >> Release artifacts are here: >> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/uima/uimafit-2.4.0-rc2/ >> >> Overall 2 issues have been resolved for this release. >> They can be found in the jira-report.html. >> >> ... and here: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20UIMA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.4.0uimaFIT%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC >> >> Please vote on release: >> >> [ ] +1 OK to release >> [ ] 0 Don't care >> [ ] -1 Not OK to release, because ... >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- Richard >
