Inline On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hallo Folks, > > I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 (which > both have the same bug fix level, functionality and release announcement), > build from revision 910082 of the corresponding branches. Thanks for all your > help! Please test them and give your votes until Thursday morning, as the > scheduled release date for both versions is Friday, Feb 19th, 2010. Only > votes from Lucene PMC are binding, but everyone > is welcome to check the release candidate and voice their approval or > disapproval. The vote passes if at least three binding +1 votes are cast. > > We planned the parallel release with one announcement because of their > parallel development / bug fix level to emphasize that they are equal except > deprecation removal and Java 5 since major version 3. > > Please also read the attached release announcement (Open Document) and send > it corrected back if you miss anything or want to improve my bad English :-) > > You find the artifacts here: > http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/lucene-292-301-take1-rev910082/ > Still working through this, but: Why are there SHA1 signatures for the 3.0.1 releases but not 2.9.2. I don't think SHA1 is required (in fact, isn't it cracked?) so it may be fine to just remove it. > === Proposed Release Announcement === > > Hello Lucene users, > > On behalf of the Lucene development community I would like to announce the > release of Lucene Java versions 3.0.1 and 2.9.2: > > Both releases fix bugs in the previous versions, where 2.9.2 is the last > release working with Java 1.4, still providing all deprecated APIs of the > Lucene Java 2.x series. 3.0.1 has the same bug fix level, but requires Java 5 > and is no longer compatible with code using deprecated APIs. The API was > cleaned up to make use of Java 5's generics, varargs, enums, and autoboxing. > New users of Lucene are advised to use version 3.0.1 for new developments, > because it has a clean, type safe new API. Users upgrading from 2.9.x can now > remove unnecessary casts and add generics to their code, too. > > Important improvements in these releases are a increased maximum number of > unique terms in each index segment. They also add fixes in IndexWriter’s > commit and lost document deletes in near real-time indexing. > Also lots of bugs in Contrib’s Analyzers package were fixed. How about: "Several bugs in Contrib's Analyzers package were fixed" Also, do these changes imply reindexing is needed? If so, we should say so. -Grant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
