I hate to have to say this, but I have concerns about the NOTICE file based on recent traffic here. Unfortunately, that conversation left me with a giant headache and no clear idea.
The issue is that there's a misc acknowledgement in there which is not a relocated IP notice. Are those OK, or not? (@Leo, help!) On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2011-11-23, sebb wrote: > >> On 23 November 2011 05:17, Prescott Nasser <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3 is available and >>> ready for your testing and voting. > > >>> Release candidate artifacts: >>> http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/ > >> The source archive is missing several chunks of what is in the SVN tag. > >> None of the following directory trees are in the source archive: > >> branding/ >> docs/ >> lib/ > > Yes, this is deliberate. > >> Are none of these needed for building/testing the software? > > lib contains tools that developers need to test or build certain parts. > All of them can be downloaded separately and in fact many .NET > developers will have their own copy of NUnit already. There is no point > in bundling them with the release. They are in svn for convenience. > > See the last point in <https://cwiki.apache.org/LUCENENET/road-map.html> > > It is an issue the community will be addressing. > > branding and docs are website only things. > >> The SVN tag contains lots of .exe files under the lib tree. >> Is it *really* necessary for these to be in SVN? > > See above. > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
