Ha - you guys rock Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Troy Howard Sent: 1/25/2012 4:37 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
+1 On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > DIGY > > -----Original Message----- > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:56 AM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release > (take 2) > > Thanks for the +1, we need one more vote here, then Stefan will be > comfortable giving us a plus one, which will give us two plus ones in > general, and ill only have to beg for one more :) > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ________________________________ > From: Michael Herndon > Sent: 1/25/2012 11:15 AM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release > (take 2) > > verified tests pass and checksums match. > > so +1 > > > @P, I remember that thread. Those guys stay busy though and devopt > mentality is different than a devs. > > Our needs probably exceed what the svn CMS is meant for due to > documentation. I am curious if infra allows for or would allow us to throw > up a static mono/asp.net mvc in the future just so that we could dog food > the site with search using Lucene.Net and then have it index certain pages > or sites (wiki, tutorials, static site, docs). We'll probably need to dig > out our CMS options again and weight against short term and long term > goals. > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Prescott Nasser > <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > >> You know even making a small change to the website like updating the news >> takes like 30 minutes to run now because of all the files. Its absolutely >> ridiculous. >> >> I got chided by the CMS group, yet when asked how do we put documentation >> online with the new system there were crickets. >> >> >> >> Sent from my Windows Phone >> ________________________________ >> From: Michael Herndon >> Sent: 1/25/2012 8:26 AM >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 >> Release (take 2) >> >> I was not able to download the binaries till this morning. The wiki was >> also having issues. >> >> I ran rat on the the released source, that seems fine. did a compare on src >> zip and the tag. it matches. >> >> The only things I saw are nit picks. >> in the ReadMe the link should point to its respective tag instead of RC3 >> for just 2_9_4 >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/lib/should >> be >> >> when releasing the source in the future, we should either include a script >> that pulls the lib for the developers who want to compile from source >> inside a tag when the project is built using the solution. Or we should >> invest into using something like nuget for dependencies so that the >> dependencies are automatically fetched somehow and we can remove those from >> svn/scm altogether. >> >> the source currently violates the "don't make me think about it" principle. >> >> >> >> I know we all dislike chms, but until we figure out a better way of posting >> the generated msdn documentation online, we should include that in releases >> as well. The static website version generates a high number of static html >> files and our current CMS requires that those files are pushed into SVN >> which just is not feasible. Committing that all at once will choke infra's >> setup (and if they hired ninjas to pay us a visit, I probably wouldn't >> blame them) and doing partial commits is just borderline insanity. >> >> >> Just waiting on the all the tests to finish running. >> http://xkcd.com/303/ >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon wrote: >> > >> > > Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn? >> > >> > Pretty much a long and boring manual process. I did something like >> > >> > find . -name \*.cs -print0 | xargs -0 -e svn ps svn:eol-style native >> > >> > i.e. tried to set the eol-style property on all C# source files. This >> > won't do anything if the property is set and tell you it has changed >> > something in "svn status" if it the property hasn't been set before. >> > >> > svn will also fail if the file in question contains inconsistent line >> > ends, this is the case for the NUnit doc files and even some of >> > Lucene.NET sources. >> > >> > Repeat for all other file extension that should map to text files. >> > >> > > I'm setting up RAT on my local. Are there any other tools that you or >> > ASF >> > > recommends in general to validate releases? >> > >> > I think Sebb has a bunch of scripts he uses, but never bothered to look >> > them up. If so, they'd be inside the comitters svn repo. >> > >> > For this release you don't even need to check line-feeds, the properties >> > have not been set on all files. The patch I provided a while ago only >> > applied to trunk. To me this is no reason to stop the release, in >> > particular since most files have Windows line-ends and Prescott built >> > the release on Windows so the files would be the same with and without >> > svn:eol-style anyway. >> > >> > I intend to provide a new patch for the 3.0.3 branch once you have >> > decided which way to go. Most likely there'll be files without license >> > headers in that branch as well. >> > >> > Stefan >> > >> > > ----- > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4765 - Release Date: 01/25/12 >
