Stefan, I'm pretty close to finishing a second release candidate... Been busy today/yesterday.
Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > On 2011-02-23, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> Not only cosmetic: > >> * The NOTICE file contains a bad copyright year and doesn't talk about >> Lucene.NET at all. Make that Lucene.NET rather than Lucene and >> 2006-2011. > >> * LICENSE talks about src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/UnicodeUtil.java >> and src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/ArrayUtil.java that certainly >> don't exist while there are files with different names that the >> corresponding license entry applies to. > >> * Quite a few files that could contain the ASF license don't. >> I've run RAT[1] over the distribution archives and the results are >> here <http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/Lucene.NET/> > >> I dont think the .txt files need a license, but the .html, .cs, .xml >> (at least the ones that are not generated), .config, .nunit and >> .resources files can and should. One could even argue the .sln and >> .c[ds]proj files should (the build.xml or pom.xml files of Java >> projects also do). > >> * some snowball files need to get relicensed under Apache Software >> License 2.0 (the are still at 1.1). > > These are so straight forward to fix that even I can do it ;-) > > Unless anybody yells I'll put some time aside today to create a patch > that fixes the issues in trunk and should hopefully be easy to merge to > the 2.9.2 tag/branch and will attach it to LOCENENET-381. > > Stefan >
