On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > 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.
Not a show stopper, BTW. Just curious about what is different. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
