You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> on 2011/02/23 00:35:26 UTC
[Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
All,
I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1 is
available and ready for your testing and voting.
Release candidate artifacts:
http://people.apache.org/~thoward/Lucene.Net/2.9.2-incubating-RC1/dist/
SVN tag revision:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_2
The vote is open for 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least
three +1 Lucene.Net PMC votes are cast.
Please cast your votes!
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Thanks to everyone involved for the hard work and contributions which
made this release possible.
Thanks,
Troy
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
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.
Thanks,
Troy
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@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/
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2011-02-25, Troy Howard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> I'm pretty close to finishing a second release candidate...
I take this as "don't waste your time, I've already done most of it".
> Been busy today/yesterday.
No problem. I didn't mean to rush you just wanted to lend a hand.
Stefan
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
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 <bo...@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
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
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
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2011-02-23, Michael Herndon 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?
The notice you put at the top of each file *is* the short notice 8-)
Just compare it with the full license text.
> 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.
For background on the existing policies:
<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html>
In the past (Apache Software License 1.1) we used to put the full text
(which was way shorter than the 2.0 license) into each file.
One reason that we need to put it into each file is that we may be
combining our code and contributions under a different license into a
combined work and need to mark those where the Apache Software License
applies.
Another is that people looking at the code for a single file will know
immediately about its license.
Note that the ASF only holds the copyright for the distribution as a
whole (the combined work) and not for the individual files. Each
contributor retains copyright of her/his own work and grants the ASF a
license to redistribute it (via the ICLA).
Stefan
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2011-02-23, Troy Howard wrote:
> 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.
Buildbot <http://ci.apache.org/buildbot.html> can be set up to create
RAT reports, even for projects that use other CI options for their
actual builds <http://ci.apache.org/projects/>.
You can even check in a file containing the names of files that should
be skipped because you know it won't and can't contain the license.
I wouldn't recommend having a tool add the license automatically, maybe
the file simply isn't licensed using the Apache Software License, maybe
you'd make it useless if you added the license.
Stefan
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
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 <mh...@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 <bo...@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/
>>
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@o19s.com>.
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 <bo...@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/
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
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/
[Lucene.Net] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
All,
This vote is being closed as not passing due to the valid issues Stefan raised.
Thanks,
Troy
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1 is
> available and ready for your testing and voting.
>
> Release candidate artifacts:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~thoward/Lucene.Net/2.9.2-incubating-RC1/dist/
>
> SVN tag revision:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_2
>
> The vote is open for 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least
> three +1 Lucene.Net PMC votes are cast.
>
> Please cast your votes!
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> Thanks to everyone involved for the hard work and contributions which
> made this release possible.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>