Hudkins and plugins seems to work on the newest jenkins on windows 2008 r2.
I'm just waiting on a signal that the folder structure has been been redone and finalized to move forward with geting a build script working on a local server 2008 R2 install. then submitting all the needs to get everything working on hudkins and server 2008 to infrastructure. On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Amanuel Workneh <aman...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
