incubator-ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wu, Stephen T., Ph.D." <Wu.Step...@mayo.edu>
Subject Re: releases questions
Date Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:08:16 GMT
I vote whatever james votes =P

stephen


On 11/21/12 11:15 AM, "Masanz, James J." <Masanz.James@mayo.edu> wrote:

> 
> I don't know if we need a vote or not about skipping 2.6.
> 
> I should have at least included my reasons for wanting to skip releasing a
> 2.6. I know I was the one originally encouraging us to keep a 2.6 release in
> the plan, but since then:
> 
> - I don't think it is worth the effort of resolving the issue of unbundling
> UMLS from cTAKES in 2.6 since 2.6 would be a one-off and it will be done
> differently in 3.0.
> 
> - Given the amount of time it is taking to get a release out, I'd rather see
> all energy focused on 3.0 at this point.
> 
> -- James
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ctakes-dev-return-889-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org
>> [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-889-
>> Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org] On Behalf Of Bleeker, Troy
>> C.
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:42 AM
>> To: 'ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org'
>> Subject: RE: releases questions
>> 
>> That will make a big impact on documentation. Do we need to vote on
>> skipping 2.6 entirely. I'd rather not assume that this was enough to
>> cancel the release and find out later that we needed to have it for some
>> reason.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Troy
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ctakes-dev-return-886-Bleeker.Troy=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org
>> [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-886-
>> Bleeker.Troy=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org] On Behalf Of Masanz, James
>> J.
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:33 AM
>> To: 'ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org'
>> Subject: RE: releases questions
>> 
>> 
>>> We need to figure out if the UMLS license is compatible, if its not
>>> compatible it cannot be included.
>> 
>> It's not compatible, so I suggest skipping 2.6 and I can shift focus
>> entirely to 3.0, which according to the release notes will have UMLS
>> separately downloadable.
>> 
>> -- James
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ctakes-dev-return-884-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org
>>> [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-884-
>>> Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org] On Behalf Of Jörn Kottmann
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:16 AM
>>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: releases questions
>>> 
>>> On 11/19/2012 09:49 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
>>>> Mentors,
>>>> 
>>>> I have a couple questions related to releases
>>>> 
>>>> 1)How long should we expect for feedback on a release candidate from
>>> mentors? At what point is a reminder in order?
>>> 
>>> I don't mind receiving a reminder off list, once in a while I need at
>>> least a day to respond.
>>> 
>>>> There are two threads related to that question:
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ctakes-dev/201211
>>>> .m
>>>> box/%3C924DE05C19409B438EB81DE683A942D922237B%40CHEXMBX1A.CHBOSTON.O
>>>> RG
>>>> %3E
>>> 
>>> I spoke about it with Pei, this RC contains trove4j (LGPL) which is
>>> not compatible with the Apache license, in that state you cannot
>>> release it and he send some follow up mails to the list here
>> afterwards.
>>> 
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ctakes-dev/201211
>>>> .m
>>>> box/%3C996FC801C05DF64A84246A106FACACD002BC21%40MSGPEXCHA08A.mfad.mf
>>>> ro
>>>> ot.org%3E
>>>> 
>>>> 2) Is there something else that you wait on or look for from the
>>> community or the release managers that has been lacking?
>>>> 
>>>> 3)I haven't seen an answer to the question of "Is it a hard
>>> requirement that we not include the subset of UMLS that we had
>>> included in cTAKES 2.5 in our Apache cTAKES incubating releases?"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We need to figure out if the UMLS license is compatible, if its not
>>> compatible it cannot be included. The UMLS license is not listed on
>>> the Apache 3rd party license page, in that case you need to post on
>>> legal so they can have a look.
>>> 
>>> There are two ways here to get further with the UMLS problem:
>>> a) Send a mail to the legal list to discuss the license
>>> b) Exclude the UMLS dictionary from the release
>>> 
>>> Jörn


Mime
View raw message