From java-dev-return-46789-apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Wed Feb 17 22:46:18 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 61541 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2010 22:46:18 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Feb 2010 22:46:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 8219 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2010 22:46:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 8157 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2010 22:46:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 8149 invoked by uid 99); 17 Feb 2010 22:46:17 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:46:17 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=10.0 tests=MISSING_HEADERS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gsiasf@gmail.com designates 209.85.211.185 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.211.185] (HELO mail-yw0-f185.google.com) (209.85.211.185) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:46:07 +0000 Received: by ywh15 with SMTP id 15so413963ywh.20 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:45:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:content-type :mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:x-mailer; bh=5MIyCumartwES4djZ2+DIcUOJfp9bUqYDvuMLGwglbs=; b=vFSnBuay+6QFv+JHy22nqVzzAWXuEzo8iK4yoB2aionF8jkZnXWGuE6aCGq5qGJKjl lCjKaaEehpdgKj6Id7UVQ2M+n+EtnXwcGEFvIMCKKrpdAlILkbbKpqPky9OaEosLaRBN zlKh44LbwwBEgKaqvKqkxt9mAl1nr2CBxiN90= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:x-mailer; b=GNY9/YMX+YBG1ENbcOHfPC8dSaqaMZFlZ/u8e9bosFS1hEc90d1rujKcnrVIgSVaNL ABqGvY3VP6jNQK1uxXmFgUdvjjmXiK5y+xMXrKAcge2uK+YCaPF52a4mDcZ/+Ch7anJz 9ZWe8Cp8Ne61Bhwc+w8KT2wTYCVxKWs3OcJMM= Received: by 10.100.24.15 with SMTP id 15mr7803288anx.161.1266446746730; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:45:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.0.77? (adsl-065-013-152-164.sip.rdu.bellsouth.net [65.13.152.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm431328gxk.3.2010.02.17.14.45.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:45:45 -0800 (PST) Sender: Grant Ingersoll Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 release artifacts From: Grant Ingersoll In-Reply-To: <293F8E54-7AA8-48DA-ACA2-F0916100D7F5@apache.org> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:45:44 -0500 Cc: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <001601caadcf$d2b80030$78280090$@de> <293F8E54-7AA8-48DA-ACA2-F0916100D7F5@apache.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Inline >=20 > On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: >=20 >> Hallo Folks, >>=20 >> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and = 3.0.1 (which both have the same bug fix level, functionality and release = announcement), build from revision 910082 of the corresponding branches. = Thanks for all your help! Please test them and give your votes until = Thursday morning, as the scheduled release date for both versions is = Friday, Feb 19th, 2010. Only votes from Lucene PMC are binding, but = everyone >> is welcome to check the release candidate and voice their approval or = disapproval. The vote passes if at least three binding +1 votes are = cast. >>=20 >> We planned the parallel release with one announcement because of = their parallel development / bug fix level to emphasize that they are = equal except deprecation removal and Java 5 since major version 3. >>=20 >> Please also read the attached release announcement (Open Document) = and send it corrected back if you miss anything or want to improve my = bad English :-) >>=20 >> You find the artifacts here: >> = http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/lucene-292-301-take1-rev= 910082/ >>=20 >=20 > Still working through this, but:=20 >=20 > Why are there SHA1 signatures for the 3.0.1 releases but not 2.9.2. I = don't think SHA1 is required (in fact, isn't it cracked?) so it may be = fine to just remove it. Not a show stopper, BTW. Just curious about what is different. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org