lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Date Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:04:26 GMT
On 2011-02-23, Troy Howard wrote:

> I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1 is
> available and ready for your testing and voting.

Great.

I could successfully verify your PGP signature.

> Release candidate artifacts:

> http://people.apache.org/~thoward/Lucene.Net/2.9.2-incubating-RC1/dist/

I found some issues, some really only cosmetic and maybe even a matter
of taste, and some that may lead Incubator PMC members to vote -1.  It
may be better to fix those even if it means you'd lose against your
schedule and have the release slip a day.

Not only cosmetic:

* The NOTICE file contains a bad copyright year and doesn't talk about
  Lucene.NET at all.  Make that Lucene.NET rather than Lucene and
  2006-2011.

* LICENSE talks about src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/UnicodeUtil.java
  and src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/ArrayUtil.java that certainly
  don't exist while there are files with different names that the
  corresponding license entry applies to.

* Quite a few files that could contain the ASF license don't.
  I've run RAT[1] over the distribution archives and the results are
  here <http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/Lucene.NET/>

  I dont think the .txt files need a license, but the .html, .cs, .xml
  (at least the ones that are not generated), .config, .nunit and
  .resources files can and should.  One could even argue the .sln and
  .c[ds]proj files should (the build.xml or pom.xml files of Java
  projects also do).

* some snowball files need to get relicensed under Apache Software
  License 2.0 (the are still at 1.1).

Cosmetic of low importance, feel free to ignore some:

* The top level directories of the bin and src archives are different,
  which is confusing (Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.2-incubating-RC1.bin vs
  2.9.2).

* The layout of the bin archive is, uhm, surprising.  You wouldn't
  expect to find a top level src directory when you look for DLLs only.

* I wouldn't include the .user files in the src ZIP.

* The file names inside the .md5 and .sha1 files are all lowercase while
  the real filenames ar not.  This may lead automated integrity checks
  to flag them as not matching.

Stefan

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/rat/

Mime
View raw message