Sweet, CI rocks. Just ran through things in the aforementioned app that required some search updates. 2.9.4 was a drop in replacement for the pre-offical 2.9.2. Search scores remained identical throughout the database, etc. Release +1.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: > 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 >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >
