Hi, 2008/11/30 Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Based on your email though, it sounds like a few s/incubator/lucene/ > > changes and another paragraph in the README file is really all that needs > > to be "fixed" to make 0.2 releasable (in my opinion anyway) > > We could do that as well. Dave, what's your preference?
I think we should probably release the current trunk given the improvement to provide Java 1.4 support. I would be inclined to release this as 0.2 given we haven't released anything so far. One thing about the naming of the release artefacts - whilst we can simply use the apache-tika name for the source JAR or tarball, given that the binary file is the result of a maven build the name will be tika-0.2.jar. Normally adding apache- prefix doesn't matter as other projects are bundling the generated jar within a tarball or zip generated by the assembly plugin, so the name is simply on the outer packaging. In our case we would have to add it in the pom which I don't particularly like and is non-standard. Otherwise, it would be a rename which would result in a mismatch between the file generated from source and our release, as well as manual work on repository publishing. In my eyes we could either a) stick using the name tika for source and binary files or b) package them up as separate source and binary files using assembly with the name apache-tika. B have the added bonus of allowing us to package the documentation with the release - I also have a patch on ice. Any thoughts? Cheers, Dave
