Return-Path: 
 <general-return-2050-apmail-lucene-general-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 98121 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2010 18:31:08 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2010 18:31:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 70986 invoked by uid 500); 23 Feb 2010 18:31:07 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@lucene.apache.org
Received: (qmail 70912 invoked by uid 500); 23 Feb 2010 18:31:07 -0000
Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:general-help@lucene.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:general-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:general@lucene.apache.org>
List-Id: <general.lucene.apache.org>
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list general@lucene.apache.org
Received: (qmail 70894 invoked by uid 99); 23 Feb 2010 18:31:07 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:31:07 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ted.dunning@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.185 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.216.185] (HELO mail-px0-f185.google.com)
 (209.85.216.185)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:31:00 +0000
Received: by pxi15 with SMTP id 15so291107pxi.21
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:30:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=0zqvzxvTkqTw6f1DSJb3+ZC98HSb26tTEzplkqf/btY=;
        b=P18fDCpqYcatrtsoWWN5sn97ctKxWSTmBH6RFT6XaOf8X1qyG3AWQ3R8XEA6sCtt0R
         2RE9ddT5jXd13d/n60fpuyTY/JPxNC/PYoNSyftf+HeabFiWwOMYe8H/foyA6beGRzoa
         XOxTioYgDNRnJGG/FU7K3MU/n4aQqLxjIcgsE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=cNR/aYjzLYPffol2DPbquK/rfriTsLfrmUEOxZFKwaNgh+wVr0872qqj4Knp0C2o4P
         QUNpjUg4IWBAvFWSRlKTksO7sGYxvpXrdOsxgpYQXNgRX/6KwxfqqibJiTBCOXB17/qF
         OF8A4l8FTbSNcGvX0utpHCTZgH7dDcn4+JukQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.88.33 with SMTP id l33mr1769324rvb.261.1266949840103;
 Tue,
	23 Feb 2010 10:30:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <000c01cab4a1$eb7bbd90$c27338b0$@de>
References: <002501cab34f$3867de80$a9379b80$@de>
 <000c01cab4a1$eb7bbd90$c27338b0$@de>
From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:30:20 -0800
Message-ID: <c7d45fc71002231030l4d04bfbekac5e8d21e7abf0f9@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 release artifacts - Take #2
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Cc: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd16e162aeb57048048bf16

--000e0cd16e162aeb57048048bf16
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Uwe's opinion should be binding.

I would like to change my vote to reflect his results.

+1 (revised from +0)

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:

> I also checked the release artifacts in my projects and can conclude, that
> the 3.0.1 version works correctly for me. 2.9.x is no longer in use here.
> But both -src artifact files build and test correctly. Signatures are fine
> and also hashes.
>
> So a non-counting +1 from me (non-PMC).
>



-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

--000e0cd16e162aeb57048048bf16--