Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Looks ok to me. In future releases it might be good to consider including a release notes type file that mentions whats been updated in the release. +1 ...ant On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi all, We could use another vote or two, Thanks! -P Sent from my Windows Phone From: Benson Margulies Sent: 11/25/2011 11:56 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3 Well, fine, I am happy to +1. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On Nov 25, 2011, at 8:32 AM, ant elder wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: I hate to have to say this, but I have concerns about the NOTICE file based on recent traffic here. LOL Unfortunately, that conversation left me with a giant headache and no clear idea. The issue is that there's a misc acknowledgement in there which is not a relocated IP notice. Are those OK, or not? (@Leo, help!) Not including something in the NOTICE that must be required might be a blocking problem but including just a little more than is necessary isn't IMHO. If it was a podling release with so much unnecessary stuff that it showed they didn't really understand the requirements maybe thats worth voting against so they go and sort it out but for something like this i think its ok to say sort it out later I am of the same opinion here. I think that some votes on this list are overly critical, often laden with personal opinions and not real Foundation requirements. This leads to a very frustrating experience to new podling members who are unable to tell the difference. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Hi all, We could use another vote or two, Thanks! -P Sent from my Windows Phone From: Benson Margulies Sent: 11/25/2011 11:56 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3 Well, fine, I am happy to +1. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On Nov 25, 2011, at 8:32 AM, ant elder wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: I hate to have to say this, but I have concerns about the NOTICE file based on recent traffic here. LOL Unfortunately, that conversation left me with a giant headache and no clear idea. The issue is that there's a misc acknowledgement in there which is not a relocated IP notice. Are those OK, or not? (@Leo, help!) Not including something in the NOTICE that must be required might be a blocking problem but including just a little more than is necessary isn't IMHO. If it was a podling release with so much unnecessary stuff that it showed they didn't really understand the requirements maybe thats worth voting against so they go and sort it out but for something like this i think its ok to say sort it out later I am of the same opinion here. I think that some votes on this list are overly critical, often laden with personal opinions and not real Foundation requirements. This leads to a very frustrating experience to new podling members who are unable to tell the difference. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: Can anybody please point me to the result of the conversation that defines our current understanding of what goes into NOTICE and what doesn't so I don't give bad advice to podlings? I'm pretty sure this must have changed over the years and I was conditioned with a different interpretation from what it is now. Is it http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-notice (which fortunately don't disagree with each other) ? I think a little while back it seemed to be understood that pretty much any copyright you might find in the project code or any of the licenses it used should be copied into the NOTICE file, and thats why you see some NOTICE file with lots of content. Thats changed and now the view is there are very few things that should actually be added to the notice file. The most authoritative place is the link those links already link to - http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice - which says ...The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required third-party notices.. The problem is that what are required third-party notices is not really described anywhere. There was some helpful discussion about this in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 and the ML discussion around that, for example, http://apache.markmail.org/message/u66o5ucyfquxjl7i?q=LEGAL-59, and theres also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62 ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
I hate to have to say this, but I have concerns about the NOTICE file based on recent traffic here. Unfortunately, that conversation left me with a giant headache and no clear idea. The issue is that there's a misc acknowledgement in there which is not a relocated IP notice. Are those OK, or not? (@Leo, help!) On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: On 2011-11-23, sebb wrote: On 23 November 2011 05:17, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote: I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3 is available and ready for your testing and voting. Release candidate artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/ The source archive is missing several chunks of what is in the SVN tag. None of the following directory trees are in the source archive: branding/ docs/ lib/ Yes, this is deliberate. Are none of these needed for building/testing the software? lib contains tools that developers need to test or build certain parts. All of them can be downloaded separately and in fact many .NET developers will have their own copy of NUnit already. There is no point in bundling them with the release. They are in svn for convenience. See the last point in https://cwiki.apache.org/LUCENENET/road-map.html It is an issue the community will be addressing. branding and docs are website only things. The SVN tag contains lots of .exe files under the lib tree. Is it *really* necessary for these to be in SVN? See above. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: I hate to have to say this, but I have concerns about the NOTICE file based on recent traffic here. LOL Unfortunately, that conversation left me with a giant headache and no clear idea. The issue is that there's a misc acknowledgement in there which is not a relocated IP notice. Are those OK, or not? (@Leo, help!) Not including something in the NOTICE that must be required might be a blocking problem but including just a little more than is necessary isn't IMHO. If it was a podling release with so much unnecessary stuff that it showed they didn't really understand the requirements maybe thats worth voting against so they go and sort it out but for something like this i think its ok to say sort it out later ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On Nov 25, 2011, at 8:32 AM, ant elder wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: I hate to have to say this, but I have concerns about the NOTICE file based on recent traffic here. LOL Unfortunately, that conversation left me with a giant headache and no clear idea. The issue is that there's a misc acknowledgement in there which is not a relocated IP notice. Are those OK, or not? (@Leo, help!) Not including something in the NOTICE that must be required might be a blocking problem but including just a little more than is necessary isn't IMHO. If it was a podling release with so much unnecessary stuff that it showed they didn't really understand the requirements maybe thats worth voting against so they go and sort it out but for something like this i think its ok to say sort it out later I am of the same opinion here. I think that some votes on this list are overly critical, often laden with personal opinions and not real Foundation requirements. This leads to a very frustrating experience to new podling members who are unable to tell the difference. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:53:43AM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I think that some votes on this list are overly critical, often laden with personal opinions and not real Foundation requirements. This leads to a very frustrating experience to new podling members who are unable to tell the difference. Not as frustrating as putting up a release candidate which twists in the wind for weeks waiting for a IPMC member to review because Mentors are awol! The few individuals who do this thankless work on a regular basis are crucial to the functioning of the Incubator, and are doing far more than their share to make up for a collective failure. Note that if a release garners 3 +1 votes, it doesn't matter if it got any -1 votes: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Votes on Package Releases Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format similar to majority approval -- except that the decision is officially determined solely by whether at least three +1 votes were registered. *Releases may not be vetoed.* Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, once three or more positive votes have been garnered, lies with the individual serving as release manager. The specifics of the process may vary from project to project, but the 'minimum of three +1 votes' rule is universal. Thus, if other IPMC members are dissatisfied with the efforts of their fellow volunteers, they have the power to overrule them so long as they are willing to do the work. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Well, fine, I am happy to +1. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On Nov 25, 2011, at 8:32 AM, ant elder wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: I hate to have to say this, but I have concerns about the NOTICE file based on recent traffic here. LOL Unfortunately, that conversation left me with a giant headache and no clear idea. The issue is that there's a misc acknowledgement in there which is not a relocated IP notice. Are those OK, or not? (@Leo, help!) Not including something in the NOTICE that must be required might be a blocking problem but including just a little more than is necessary isn't IMHO. If it was a podling release with so much unnecessary stuff that it showed they didn't really understand the requirements maybe thats worth voting against so they go and sort it out but for something like this i think its ok to say sort it out later I am of the same opinion here. I think that some votes on this list are overly critical, often laden with personal opinions and not real Foundation requirements. This leads to a very frustrating experience to new podling members who are unable to tell the difference. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: Not as frustrating as putting up a release candidate which twists in the wind for weeks waiting for a IPMC member to review because Mentors are awol! The few individuals who do this thankless work on a regular basis are crucial to the functioning of the Incubator, and are doing far more than their share to make up for a collective failure. If something is waiting for weeks then send reminder emails about it. Its easy to miss things and if a couple of days go past with all the email traffic they drop way off the bottom of a screen full of emails. Heck if even a couple of days go past start sending reminder emails every day. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 08:18:49PM +, ant elder wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: Not as frustrating as putting up a release candidate which twists in the wind for weeks waiting for a IPMC member to review because Mentors are awol! The few individuals who do this thankless work on a regular basis are crucial to the functioning of the Incubator, and are doing far more than their share to make up for a collective failure. If something is waiting for weeks then send reminder emails about it. Its easy to miss things and if a couple of days go past with all the email traffic they drop way off the bottom of a screen full of emails. Heck if even a couple of days go past start sending reminder emails every day. The one project I am involved with in the Incubator (Lucy) is fortunate to have a full contigent of engaged Mentors. One of our release votes took a couple weeks, but the timing of that release wasn't a big deal and we chose to be patient. Every time we have needed our Mentors, they have come through for us. On behalf of the many podlings whose releases candidates you've reviewed in the past, though, and on behalf of the others who will need such review in the future -- thank you. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On 2011-11-25, Benson Margulies wrote: I hate to have to say this, but I have concerns about the NOTICE file based on recent traffic here. If anything this is a case of ask and get three different answers as the Lucene.NET community added the stuff to the NOTICE file because I as a mentor told them to. Sorry about that. This is the same kind of acknowledgement the Lucene Java project has in their NOTICE file as well, for example. Can anybody please point me to the result of the conversation that defines our current understanding of what goes into NOTICE and what doesn't so I don't give bad advice to podlings? I'm pretty sure this must have changed over the years and I was conditioned with a different interpretation from what it is now. Is it http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-notice (which fortunately don't disagree with each other) ? Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On 2011-11-25, ant elder wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: The issue is that there's a misc acknowledgement in there which is not a relocated IP notice. Are those OK, or not? (@Leo, help!) Not including something in the NOTICE that must be required might be a blocking problem but including just a little more than is necessary isn't IMHO. If it was a podling release with so much unnecessary stuff that it showed they didn't really understand the requirements maybe thats worth voting against so they go and sort it out but for something like this i think its ok to say sort it out later Agreed. I'll make sure it gets sorted out before the next release https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-458 Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On 23 November 2011 05:17, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote: All, I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3 is available and ready for your testing and voting. Release candidate artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/ The source archive is missing several chunks of what is in the SVN tag. None of the following directory trees are in the source archive: branding/ docs/ lib/ Are none of these needed for building/testing the software? If they are purely for building the web-site, then maybe that would be cleaner as a separate SVN tree. SVN tag revision: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/ The SVN tag contains lots of .exe files under the lib tree. Is it *really* necessary for these to be in SVN? For example, Gallio appears to be a test framework for NET. Projects that use a Java test framework such as JUnit don't normally include JUnit in their SVN, they just document it as a pre-requisite or fetch it at run-time if necessary. Similarly for the other .exe files. The vote is open for 72 hours (we can extend this if people feel the US Thanksgiving holiday will impact the vote) Thanks to the Lucene contributors and committers for their hard work, and special thanks to Stefan for helping me get this release ready to roll out the door. Thanks, ~Prescott - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On 2011-11-23, sebb wrote: On 23 November 2011 05:17, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote: I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3 is available and ready for your testing and voting. Release candidate artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/ The source archive is missing several chunks of what is in the SVN tag. None of the following directory trees are in the source archive: branding/ docs/ lib/ Yes, this is deliberate. Are none of these needed for building/testing the software? lib contains tools that developers need to test or build certain parts. All of them can be downloaded separately and in fact many .NET developers will have their own copy of NUnit already. There is no point in bundling them with the release. They are in svn for convenience. See the last point in https://cwiki.apache.org/LUCENENET/road-map.html It is an issue the community will be addressing. branding and docs are website only things. The SVN tag contains lots of .exe files under the lib tree. Is it *really* necessary for these to be in SVN? See above. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On 2011-11-23, Prescott Nasser wrote: I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3 is available and ready for your testing and voting. This release has one IPMC +1 so far (mine) and needs at least two more. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
