Hi, Can we not simply release that package as it contains really important security fixes? Fixing this issue can be done later and is not needed for this release (otherwise we must fix all previous releases, because their Javadocs are broken). We already have more than three +1 votes, so where is the issue?
Uwe P.S.: If we really want to respin, please take also LUCENE-3588 into account. ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 6:49 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2 > > > : This is why I agree with your fix (versus adding a regular expression > : to ignore the warning in addition to Uwe's java 7 hack)... its just > : about whether it should be a blocker to release or not. > : > : Because chances are within the 72 hour vote period the link starts > : working again... if this happens will you rescind your -1? > > I can only VOTE on what is in front of me to test -- I'm not going to cast my vote > based on assumptions about what may or may not happen on oracle.com at > some point after i cast my vote and prior to the artifacts hitting the mirror. > > The fact that the oracle.com URL may work "now" doesn't change my vote, > because it could just as easily stop working again tomrow. I consider it a bug > that the ability to generate documentation from source is entirely dependent > on an external URL that we have no control over what so ever. > > > -Hoss > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
