Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4
Thanks, updated. DIGY On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Granroth, Neal V. < neal.granr...@thermofisher.com> wrote: > > I had no difficulty building it in Visual Studio 2005. > The assembly copyright information appears to be out of date; shouldn't it > read 2011 not 2009 ? > > > - Neal > > -Original Message- > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barn...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 2:23 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Cc: Troy Howard > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4 > > 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 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. > > 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 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 > 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 > > > > >>> > >> > > >
Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4
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. 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 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 >> 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 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 >>> 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 >>> > >>> >> >
RE: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4
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 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 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 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 >> 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 >> > >> >
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 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 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 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 >> 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 >> > >> >
Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4
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 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 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 > 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 > > >
