Thanks, updated. DIGY
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Granroth, Neal V. < neal.granr...@thermofisher.com> wrote: > > I had no difficulty building it in Visual Studio 2005. > The assembly copyright information appears to be out of date; shouldn't it > read 2011 not 2009 ? > > > - Neal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barn...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 2:23 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Cc: Troy Howard > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4 > > Tag [+1] > > svn export and command line build successful; I'll keep you all posted . . > . > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes. Once we're ready to call this revision an RC, it should be tagged as > such. > > > > Wyatt: Thanks for helping to test! Looking forward to your results. > > > > Thanks, > > Troy > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Granroth, Neal V. > > <neal.granr...@thermofisher.com> wrote: > >> > >> No, the URL in DIGY's email apepars correct and the SVN revision appears > to be 1086410. > >> > >> Question: Should there be a tag for Lucene.Net_2_9_4 as there are for > previous release candidates? > >> > >> - Neal > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barn...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:15 PM > >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > >> Cc: digy digy > >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4 > >> > >> Thanks. For anyone watching, the corrected clickable link is > >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/. > >> > >> Also, just to make sure we are looking at this right, the revision we > >> should be using is 1089138 -- main thing is I've been in and out of > >> town, not caught up on anything and I'd hate to start building stuff > >> against the wrong version . . > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:10 PM, digy digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Sorry, no binaries. You can download the source from > >>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C#/src/Lucene.Net > >>> > >>> DIGY > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Wyatt Barnett < > wyatt.barn...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> > >>>> Actually about to dive into a big search tweaking spike in a certain > >>>> project here, happy to do it on 2.9.4. Got binaries? > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > We don't have any sort of QA report on the latest build. DIGY called > >>>> > for testing, but I haven't seen anyone respond to that request > >>>> > indicating successful testing. > >>>> > > >>>> > So, how do we want to manage this? > >>>> > > >>>> > In the business world, we'd never think of making a release without > >>>> > extensive QA first. In my other open source projects, either we've > >>>> > managed QA ourselves by 'switching hats' for a couple weeks prior to > >>>> > release, or just crossed our fingers because the user base was too > >>>> > small. > >>>> > > >>>> > Lucene.Net is a fairly high-profile project, with a large user base. > I > >>>> > think it would not be responsible to make a release without a formal > >>>> > QA process. We do have extensive unit tests, but do you think those > >>>> > are sufficient to cover our QA needs? Should we try to find > community > >>>> > members with a specialty in software testing that would be willing > to > >>>> > fulfill this role on our project? Should we just swap hats? > >>>> > > >>>> > I didn't worry about this issue with the latest 2.9.2 release > because > >>>> > it was QAed by the user base for a long time before it was an > >>>> > 'official release'. Maybe this is an effective tactic? Release > first, > >>>> > and let the user base roll in bug reports fixing them on yet later > >>>> > minor maintenance releases? This seems to be the method a lot of > >>>> > projects use (i.e. no specific QA process, but rather an organic > >>>> > process of 'try our best then deal with bug reports later'). > >>>> > > >>>> > What do we think about this? > >>>> > > >>>> > Thanks, > >>>> > Troy > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Prescott Nasser < > geobmx...@hotmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Hey all, > >>>> >> > >>>> >> I know we have a number of outstanding JIRA issues, but I think > most of > >>>> them have been handled for the 2.9.4 release? Do we have anything > >>>> outstanding that is holding back a new release? > >>>> >> > >>>> >> ~P > >>>> > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
