lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Date Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:29:10 GMT
I'll work on implementing those changes.

Regarding directory structure, this was mimicing the previous
releases. I think the theory was that the two .zip files could be
overlayed on the same directory structure and end up with everything
being in the same location as if you'd built from source. That said,
agree that the binary zip should have a more accessible layout.

I'll create a branch and workup a set of RC2 artifacts.


On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Stefan Bodewig <> 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:
> 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/
>  and src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/ 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 <>
>  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]

View raw message