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 Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:45:53 GMT
Stefan,

I'm pretty close to finishing a second release candidate... Been busy
today/yesterday.

Thanks,
Troy


On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2011-02-23, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> These are so straight forward to fix that even I can do it ;-)
>
> Unless anybody yells I'll put some time aside today to create a patch
> that fixes the issues in trunk and should hopefully be easy to merge to
> the 2.9.2 tag/branch and will attach it to LOCENENET-381.
>
> Stefan
>

Mime
View raw message