lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Date Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:35 GMT
As a side note:

Whenever we get our CI server setup, we should probably have a build
task which checks for licensing in code files and inserts it if it's
not there.

Thanks,
Troy

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Michael Herndon <mherndon@o19s.com> wrote:
> I'm curious about the practice of putting license information into all
> files. The reasoning and etc.
>
> Is due to legal reasons or is it due to good practices? would providing
> short copyright info and relative path to the license suffice or is the full
> license required?
>
> Has not doing so cause issues/legal cases in the past?
>
> This will probably be good information for other developers to know in
> general as well.
>
> - Michael
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> 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