Marvin Humphrey wrote on 1/9/12 11:27 PM: > > Ignoring the .gitignore files is fine -- just add them to > devel/conf/rat-excludes.
done > > Adding CONTRIBUTING to rat-excludes is fine as well. done > > There's also install-sh, which has an MIT/X11 license. It will be necessary > to add the text of that license to LICENSE. done > >> For the c/ files, since that is just the stub of the tip of the beginning of >> a >> start for that code, do we even want it in the release? > > IMO: yes. Canonical release tarballs should be snapshots from the VCS. > Things get annoyingly complicated if you deviate from that. 10-4 > > If we don't want something in an official release, we should develop it on a > branch. That will be more straightforward once we switch to Git in a few > months. > >> Could/should files be removed from a branch if they do not represent >> 'finished' product? I realize this last is a philosophical as well as >> practical question. > > I don't think it matters much. All of the 0.2.x releases have had a ruby/ > dir containing useless in-progress code; nobody complained. check. Hoss, your comments much appreciated on this topic too. I will take it as a TODO for myself to update STATUS and README for the c/ bindings, though imo that's not a show-stopper for 0.3.0. I've now gone through all the steps on http://wiki.apache.org/lucy/ReleasePrep except for the Portability and Extended Tests section. Would someone please volunteer to do those steps? Once we're satisfied with those, I will start the actual 0.3.0 ReleaseGuide process. tia, pek -- Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . [email protected]
