Erik, --- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 06:02 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > > I think only Peter Carlson and Doug Cutting can make Lucene > releases. > > Why only them? We should have privilege to do what it takes for a > release too, no? If not, we could get it.
I don't know the details, but I believe one needs accounts on servers other than the CVS one, etc. > > What do you think about a 1.3 release? > > +1 > > > I think we should resolve the JavaCC situation and them make the > 1.3 > > release. Perhaps it would be best to include JavaCC-generated > .java > > files in the CVS, as Doug described the other day. > > I have on my to-do list to clean up the build process and get the > generated .java files checked in and only re-generated upon demand. > I'm using JavaCC 2.1. What is the latest version? I think it would make sense to use version 3.0 of JavaCC, which is the latest version, I believe. > I'm also using Ant > 1.6alpha in case that matters - I know some changes to Ant have been > made to accommodate JavaCC releases, although I haven't followed the > details. Hm, I think we should not demand from users to get alpha versions, etc. Does 1.5.4 (current stable release) have what it needs to have for JavaCC 3.0? I also see from Ant's home page that the new 1.6.* versions will require JDK 1.2 or later. I think that is fine, I think we already require this for Lucene. > I could certainly commit the files I've generated if that is ok with > the other committers. I think it is. Nobody made any negative comments about that suggestion. See also: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19468 Otis __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
