incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "George Aroush" <geo...@aroush.net>
Subject RE: [VOTE] [Retry] Approve the release of Apache Lucene.Net 2.0 build 004 incubating
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:33 GMT
Hi Robert,

Thanks for taking your time and looking at this release.  To answer your
questions:

The files *.csproj, and *.sln are the Visual Studio.NET project files --
those are auto generated and thus I can't edit them outside the IDE -- the
same goes to the few *.cs files that you noticed as well as the few *.xml
and *.html files that you highlighted.

For the file,
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/contrib/Sno
wball.Net/Test/Analysis/Snowball/TestSnowball.cs where you pointed out the
use of the old style Apache License, it looks like
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-update-scripts didn't do
the job well here.  This is an original work -- will this issue prevent a
release?.

Thanks for catching the grammatical error in the README.txt: "An MADN ..."
I fixed it in the SVN release.

Again, thanks for taking your time and looking at this release candidate.
Please let me know if I addressed all of your questions and if I get your +1
or -1 vote.

Regards,

-- George Aroush


-----Original Message-----
From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:19 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] [Retry] Approve the release of Apache Lucene.Net 2.0
build 004 incubating

On 3/20/07, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
> Hi folks,

hi George

apologies for the delay

(i'll try to be quicker next time)

> This is a re-vote request for the release of Incubating Apache 
> Lucene.Net 2.0 build 004.  I have addressed the issues raised from the 
> previous vote request.

<snip>

> I'm asking for your vote to approve this release.
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release as Apache Lucene.Net 2.0.0 build 004 
> incubating [ ] -1 Veto this release (explain why so it can be 
> addressed)

questions:
------------

RAT run: there are a quite a number of files in the source distribution
which lack the standard apache header. this is not necessarily wrong but it
does raise questions before i can judge this release.

generally all primary documents which are not binaries and which can have
license headers should have them.

*.csproj - am i right in assuming these are c# project files? if so IIRC
there are issues with adding headers to m$ project files. is this true in
this case?

*.cs - am i right in assuming that these are c# source files? AIUI these
should all have license headers, shouldn't they?

*.sln - does the 'Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File' format allow
comments?

contrib/Highlighter.Net/Highlighter.Net/Highlighter.Net.xml looks to be
standard xml and so capable of comments. is it generated?

contrib/Highlighter.Net/Highlighter.Net/Package.html looks to be standard
html and so capable of comments. is it generated?

contrib/Snowball.Net/Snowball.Net/Xdocs/Index.xml looks to be standard xml
and so capable of comments. is it generated?

contrib/Snowball.Net/Snowball.Net/Xdocs/Stylesheets/Project.xml looks to be
standard xml and so capable of comments. is it generated?

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/contrib/Sno
wball.Net/Test/Analysis/Snowball/TestSnowball.cs
has the old apache license. is this document an import or an original work
created for apache?

contrib/WordNet.Net/WordNet.Net/Build.xml is missing a license header and
looks to be standard of xml and so capable of comments. is this generated?

contrib/WordNet.Net/WordNet.Net/Package.html  looks to be standard html and
so capable of comments. is it generated?

comments and notes
-------------------------
(suggestions, not mandatory)

DOCUMENTATION



grammar typo in README.txt: "An MSDN style API documentation for Apache
Lucene.Net exist. " -> "MSDN style API documentation for Apache Lucene.Net
exists. " (IMHO not worth a revote, just fix in trunk)

there are a number of package.html documents which are IMHO too small and
uncreative to sustain copyright. remember to add license headers if their
content is expanded.

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message