Return-Path: 
 <lucene-dev-return-8527-apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive=jakarta.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 48671 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2004 16:57:27 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199)
  by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Dec 2004 16:57:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 72015 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2004 16:57:23 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 71984 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2004 16:57:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:lucene-dev-subscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Id: "Lucene Developers List" <lucene-dev.jakarta.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 71968 invoked by uid 99); 9 Dec 2004 16:57:22 -0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=10.0
	tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from web12706.mail.yahoo.com (HELO web12706.mail.yahoo.com)
 (216.136.173.243)
  by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:57:20 -0800
Received: (qmail 97057 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Dec 2004 16:56:41 -0000
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  b=P1XJHG8G85BV5/6BVlgHdfqFac1YlgLXV/w4dfptAADsuIXC1WN1YImmdCfabTJSq9yyqplfqjX2hUKk/EAiVik3KlP+DamTT0PBf48Xs0+5jT3ms7Z4HADvfSI5Pmk+sQ7xyFHssfak6h8rlsKbL3eRieOpTDFaql7OvsRCavc=
  ;
Message-ID: <20041209165638.97055.qmail@web12706.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [216.194.17.194] by web12706.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
 Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:56:38 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:56:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: two versioning problems with Lucene 
To: Lucene Developers List <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <04Dec9.083803pst."58617"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Virus-Checked: Checked
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Hello,

--- Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.com> wrote:

> > To address the issue Bill just brought up, I refer you to the 
> > documentation of the Ant <jar> task.  Check out the filesetmanifest
> 
> > attribute options:
> > 
> > 	http://ant.apache.org/manual/CoreTasks/jar.html
> > 
> > I have not yet tried this relatively new (as of Ant 1.6, since we 
> > didn't write about it in Java Development with Ant), but it looks
> like 
> > it addresses the concern of repackaging and keeping the manifest 
> > version information from being lost.
> 
> That's fine if you're using Ant to build, but lots of folks don't.
> 
> Bill

Somebody told my wife the other day that she could work as a freelance
editor.  Editing what, I asked.  Editing university student's papers,
the person said.  It pays alright.  People do it, but both my wife and
I agree it's completely wrong, so she's not even considering that.

Maybe this wasn't as good of an analogy as I had initially thought, but
just because people use Makefiles to repackage Jars and do it
incorrectly, or in a way that makes them lose provided information,
doesn't mean that we have to account for them.  In my mind this is
similar to supporting broken HTML, when there are clearly defined and
well-known standards.

Of course, this is only my opinion, and I don't expect everyone to
agree - how boring would that be! :)

Otis


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org