From user-return-8073-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@uima.apache.org Tue Apr 9 15:36:35 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 59A52180629 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:36:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 38470 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2019 15:16:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@uima.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@uima.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@uima.apache.org Received: (qmail 38429 invoked by uid 99); 9 Apr 2019 15:16:56 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 15:16:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id B1198180011 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:36:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25QHeMeBCdke for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wr1-f54.google.com (mail-wr1-f54.google.com [209.85.221.54]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id C2F7B610F0 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:36:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f54.google.com with SMTP id w10so21530190wrm.4 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 08:36:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=MtwBm8S4/bug2rayPQbsIlxkBwB7JapeyzC8FFlFjI4=; b=XRIGsBBKWcy6Sfv8J0378MqirwFmvlT6G0kfHBIi0YG4McrgrJIBP3GI7mSikyZ0A+ EvX5h3f87D9OrztYn5oYsWyzgjxIsXv2f2jwxgMxwpdgrDFlEydcTTTqiSuim39AqlwI Qk7TZvISbk4+KJ/dToxuZF59B/lIaM9MXchmYaoK3MpytKcRkn+N4zeD9BHdbSfwW/dS qi0x8mSjvNt6kuxI116QSgUxJ6GQUwO9sC0mlfPeQzTpoqQ0Ao3tifct4BObjKf8hWCe W+9/n3qgJg6KK3J/7QRjzaNazrzzZLUto2LFCol2WHPJid+Pkq5aLYhptcuVHyCjkEW6 2bbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVtjTTo7k3i/IthmuZgi9Mn8C2yW88iFfzfawUwDqArQeL3qnoN qeRtfzjBaOz5VyRh86o+oZ5djK1/w+kr7Jt03ACzjuwm X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzFkt9UaG7rFdGs8W8lfxhUF8+zPCS5aQrQZIZZCWI1JfNKiiX82TJnJYx3iGgDGS9O0OT2pDXCNCWeicEugB8= X-Received: by 2002:adf:f1c7:: with SMTP id z7mr24177179wro.274.1554824184303; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 08:36:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Christoph Ludwig Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:36:12 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: uimaFit v3 / DKPro To: user@uima.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Richard, may I ask how far you got with uimaFIT v3 ? Does it already make sense to base new code on the branch you mentioned below or do you think it's still too unstable? I am in the early stages of a text analysis project that might use UIMA, uimaFIT, and (possibly) DKPro. If a release of uimaFIT v3 is in sight, then I'd rather save myself a rewrite. On the other hand, I am a UIMA newbie; I might have a hard time to tell errors in my code apart from things that are broken due to the upgrade. Cheers! Christoph on 2018-10-02, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote in in https://narkive.com/2yAjsNFi.2: > uimaFIT v3 is on my todo list for some time already. A few > weeks ago, I almost announced a vote for a release candidate, > but then Apache policy regarding checksums changed, mandating > a switch to SHA 256/512, so I dropped the RC again. > > We are now about to release a new version of the UIMA parent > POM which will produce SHA 512 checksums for our artifacts, > then I'll go back to running the uimaFIT v2 and v3 releases. > > There are no more significant changes scheduled for uimaFIT > 2.5.0 and 3.0.0 - it's basically just doing the release now. > > If you are brave enough to use unreleased version, you could > just check out the uimaFIT 3.0.x branch [1] temporarily and > build the SNAPSHOTs locally.