My opinions - I prefer the release be numbered 2.3 to better reflect the extent of the changes. UIMA-AS in particular has had many changes.
I would like to promote some things out of the sandbox: UIMA-AS, the CAS Editor, and the stable annotators. I would prefer the release to contain at least the above promoted things, as well as of course the changes to base UIMA. I would love to get a few of the easier-to-do space improvements to core uima done, and included. One candidate would be the one to change the initialization of UIMA to not pre-load classes that may never be needed, thus reducing the footprint of loaded classes, at least. I hope someone has time to go through the open Jira's and give their opinions about significant issues that should be fixed in this release. -Marshall Thilo Goetz wrote: > All, > > I think it's time we started thinking about the next > release. We haven't had a release in a year, and while > there haven't been any major changes, we have fixed a > whole host of bugs, and we have acquired new items in > the sandbox. Also there has been major progress in > UIMA-AS, which needs a new release. > > I'll volunteer to be the release manager for this > release, but if anybody else would like to try their > hand, I'd be more than happy to forgo the honor. > > Here are some things we should think about for the > next release, in no particular order. > > * Getting releases approved by the incubator PMC is > intensely painful. I therefore suggest, if we can, > to release everything at the same time, so we have to > go through the process only once. By everything I mean > the Java core, UIMA-AS, and whatever of the sandbox > we want to release. I'm not sure anything has happened > in C++ land since the first release, but we might want > to do a release anyway to get the version numbers > aligned. > > * We have had some earlier discussions about changing > our release packaging a bit. This concerns the sandbox > in particular, as there are things in there that are > quite stable enough to graduate from there to a place > still to be created. This needs to be discussed, I don't > have a concrete proposal. > > * If we have the time and the volunteers, we should > take a look at our Eclipse based tooling. Can we add > the CAS Editor to our standard tooling? Can we incorporate > code/ideas from the CAS Viewer as we had planned some > time ago? What version of Eclipse do we still want to > support, i.e., can we prereq 3.4? I might be able to > help with the tooling, but I'm afraid of breaking things > for older versions of Eclipse as I only took up Eclipse > programming recently. > > * The version number: we could go with 2.3, or 2.2.3. > Arguments could be found for each, I don't have a strong > opinion. > > Time frame (straw man proposal): > > 6/15 end of coding, only bug fixes after this point > 6/22 end of testing, create distribution and submit for > release vote > 6/30 release > > I'll be incommunicado for two weeks starting this Friday, > but I wanted to kick this discussion of before I left. I > do think it's high time we did a release. Please let me > know what you think (and if you'd rather be the RM ;-). > > --Thilo > > >
