I was just thinking about making some in depth documentation about this process. Doing it the first time has had its bumps. I'll get there.
Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Michael Herndon Sent: 11/19/2011 11:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3 +1 for wiki checklist & ticket for for build scripts to bundle all this stuff for you. On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > Damn It - knew i was missing something > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ________________________________ > From: Stefan Bodewig > Sent: 11/19/2011 10:34 PM > To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3 > > On 2011-11-18, Prescott Nasser wrote: > > > Third time is the charm: > > I'm afraid it is not. > > > http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/ > > Sigs and hashes are good. Source zip and tag match except for the > build/lib/doc dirs that are only inside the tag and which I agree is a > good thing for now. > > LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER look good in src. > > There is no NOTICE and no DISCLAIMER in the binary zip. Has it been > this way before? If so I'm sorry I didn't catch it. This is a blocker > for me and probably would be for the other IPMC members as well. > > RAT is reasonably happy with the source tree. > > I can't give a +1 because of the missing files in the binary zip. If > you just recreated the binary with the two files added (and obviously > resigned it and recalculated the hashes) I'd be happy to change that. > > Cheers > > Stefan >
