search

sudeep87 / uimafit

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/uimafit
0 stars 0 forks source link

upgrade to Apache UIMA 2.3.1 #82

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I think we should upgrade to UIMA 2.3.1 before the UimaFIT 1.2.0 release.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by steven.b...@gmail.com on 14 Apr 2011 at 1:44

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I had also thought about this and I think we should not upgrade unless there is 
a particular bug or API in a new UIMA version that affects uimaFIT. If we 
upgrade, we also upgrade all our users because Maven automatically selects the 
highest version of a dependency, unless the user actively overrides this. If we 
do not upgrade, we leave that choice of using 2.3.1 or 2.3.0 to our users.

Original comment by richard.eckart on 14 Apr 2011 at 6:45

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
So you think it's likely that people will want to upgrade their UimaFIT from 
1.1 to 1.2, where there are backwards incompatible changes (e.g. the renaming 
of JCasAnnotatorAdapter) but they won't be willing to upgrade their UIMA from 
2.3.0 to 2.3.1 where there are no backwards incompatible changes? That seems 
unlikely to me...

Original comment by steven.b...@gmail.com on 14 Apr 2011 at 8:58

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Well, for me personally it doesn't matter. I have upgraded to 2.3.1 already. If 
the consensus is to upgrade, I'm not opposing more actively than stating why I 
personally did not suggest such an upgrade in uimaFIT.

Original comment by richard.eckart on 14 Apr 2011 at 9:29

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I lean towards upgrading to 2.3.1.  It seems that a user could switch back to 
2.3.0 if they had to - but that is not really our concern.

Original comment by phi...@ogren.info on 15 Apr 2011 at 4:47

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I guess the other reason I lean towards upgrading to 2.3.1 is that its the 
first "real" release in the sense that 2.3.0 was an incubating release, but 
2.3.1 isn't.

Original comment by steven.b...@gmail.com on 15 Apr 2011 at 6:30

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Well, it sounds like a +1 from me, a -0 from Richard and a +0 from Philip, so 
I'm going to go ahead with it. Anyone who really still needs the 
2.3.0-incubating release instead of 2.3.1 can achieve that by appropriate 
exclusions in their pom.xml.

Original comment by steven.b...@gmail.com on 15 Apr 2011 at 8:25

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
This issue was closed by revision r598.

Original comment by steven.b...@gmail.com on 15 Apr 2011 at 8:26

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by richard.eckart on 8 May 2011 at 10:41