incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] [Retry] Approve the release of Apache Lucene.Net 2.0 build 004 incubating
Date Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:19:06 GMT
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/Snowball.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


Mime
View raw message