On 3/20/07, George Aroush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
<snip>
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
