Builds fine. Three failed tests, Lucene.Net.Index.TestIndexWriterReader.TestDuringAddIndexes and Lucene.Net.Index.TestIndexWriter.TestFutureCommit and Lucene.Net.Store.TestWindowsMMap (MMapDirectory does not seem to be ready for the world yet)
Related: What is the Hudkins status? On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barn...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
