On 2011-08-10, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:48:19AM +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> You might want to use a different extension in the future (.sha512) to
>> reduce the confusion in particular since most Java projects only provide
>> sha1 hashes.
> That makes sense to me, b
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:48:19AM +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> You might want to use a different extension in the future (.sha512) to
> reduce the confusion in particular since most Java projects only provide
> sha1 hashes.
That makes sense to me, but it's contrary to the documentation on the
r
On 2011-08-09, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 02:45:30PM +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> No kind of functional testing performed, just the normal sanity checks.
> Great, thank you for the review!
>> What kind of SHA algo has been used for the .sha file?
> SHA512.
> GPG was us
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 02:45:30PM +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> No kind of functional testing performed, just the normal sanity checks.
Great, thank you for the review!
> What kind of SHA algo has been used for the .sha file?
SHA512.
GPG was used to produce all sigs and sums.
$ gpg --print
On 2011-08-07, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Release candidate 3 for Apache Lucy (incubating) version 0.2.0 can
> be found at:
> http://people.apache.org/~marvin/apache-lucy-incubating-0.2.0-rc3/
> See the CHANGES file at the top level of the archive for information about the
> content of this re
Hello,
Release candidate 3 for Apache Lucy (incubating) version 0.2.0 can
be found at:
http://people.apache.org/~marvin/apache-lucy-incubating-0.2.0-rc3/
See the CHANGES file at the top level of the archive for information about the
content of this release.
This candidate was assembled acco
