Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gsiasf@gmail.com designates
 209.85.210.190 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=II7Tbu0hK5zLD24DxNPCEyjn2sCwBRDXF2S71tCrXs8mZjEIFnZN4uXUQfJh+gBLiL
         9wJXXQ1C3eb+iIDAjLFuTfasfnKJTLBSozabJn3IylgoTFO86rrkU52rlsxS1BGrUNo7
         Qb91D43qkEQvB4FNRppLS6Pm2ki+TT+tXNlnQ=
Sender: Grant Ingersoll <gsiasf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
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 <gsingers@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <001601caadcf$d2b80030$78280090$@de>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:35:00 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <293F8E54-7AA8-48DA-ACA2-F0916100D7F5@apache.org>
References: <001601caadcf$d2b80030$78280090$@de>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org

Inline

On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:

> 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

Still working through this, but:=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.

> =3D=3D=3D Proposed Release Announcement =3D=3D=3D
>=20
> Hello Lucene users,
>=20
> On behalf of the Lucene development community I would like to announce =
the release of Lucene Java versions 3.0.1 and 2.9.2:
>=20
> Both releases fix bugs in the previous versions, where 2.9.2 is the =
last release working with Java 1.4, still providing all deprecated APIs =
of the Lucene Java 2.x series. 3.0.1 has the same bug fix level, but =
requires Java 5 and is no longer compatible with code using deprecated =
APIs. The API was cleaned up to make use of Java 5's generics, varargs, =
enums, and autoboxing. New users of Lucene are advised to use version =
3.0.1 for new developments, because it has a clean, type safe new API. =
Users upgrading from 2.9.x can now remove unnecessary casts and add =
generics to their code, too.
>=20
> Important improvements in these releases are a increased maximum =
number of unique terms in each index segment. They also add fixes in =
IndexWriter=92s commit and lost document deletes in near real-time =
indexing.
> Also lots of bugs in Contrib=92s Analyzers package were fixed.

How about:  "Several bugs in Contrib's Analyzers package were fixed"  =
Also, do these changes imply reindexing is needed?  If so, we should say =
so.

-Grant=

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