Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 69954 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 21:19:30 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 21:19:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 35630 invoked by uid 500); 26 Mar 2007 21:19:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 35134 invoked by uid 500); 26 Mar 2007 21:19:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 35123 invoked by uid 99); 26 Mar 2007 21:19:35 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:19:35 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.249 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.249] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.249) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:19:27 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b2so2179825ana for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=uOtL/ZnJQvRyV5XRKnl9mcw2ftPHpGmLMgEg0AMPhnfisJD3sKiRw5n1nSaajq6BSYFZF9mqiyUs5yKXQbEfynl4pRLtFl1UkLzUzrNGfTANCk36b8pfY3bFY0g9f6bGxADVhL7f0CXMF6wUwt7VIyzpB4OfBcAW5oI2RCPuYh8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=FvMcXHo0NgoPEsu6I0i5C7JOBLTXy7zPmvNtbNieKRbMiAKMqtXGFZpDsbQABdGOiBUG2v9Hdpndm4ViBE2+4IW+kvqtVzhMA7nXYnSvN4bTUdASDHaXsDJ5MiX506kg32c8Ps2lmgZvKL7x+5lFQ9GQcCmCHclgYM2cp6aVRs0= Received: by 10.100.112.19 with SMTP id k19mr5366280anc.1174943946317; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.141.11 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:19:06 +0100 From: "robert burrell donkin" To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] [Retry] Approve the release of Apache Lucene.Net 2.0 build 004 incubating In-Reply-To: <1b1601c76aeb$3f3427f0$6901a8c0@aroushlt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <05ca01c75ebd$5d5d1640$6501a8c0@aroushlt> <1b1601c76aeb$3f3427f0$6901a8c0@aroushlt> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 3/20/07, George Aroush wrote: > Hi folks, hi George apologies for the delay (i'll try to be quicker next time) > This is a re-vote request for the release of Incubating Apache Lucene.Net > 2.0 build 004. I have addressed the issues raised from the previous vote > request. > I'm asking for your vote to approve this release. > > [ ] +1 Approve the release as Apache Lucene.Net 2.0.0 build 004 incubating > [ ] -1 Veto this release (explain why so it can be addressed) questions: ------------ RAT run: there are a quite a number of files in the source distribution which lack the standard apache header. this is not necessarily wrong but it does raise questions before i can judge this release. generally all primary documents which are not binaries and which can have license headers should have them. *.csproj - am i right in assuming these are c# project files? if so IIRC there are issues with adding headers to m$ 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