RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
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
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.comwrote: 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
+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.comwrote: 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
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.comwrote: 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
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.comwrote: 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
LOL... We just wanted to see you grovel a little bit. ;) On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote: 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.comwrote: 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn? I'm setting up RAT on my local. Are there any other tools that you or ASF recommends in general to validate releases? - Michael On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: On 2012-01-23, Prescott Nasser wrote: I've created a wiki page with the checklist: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Release+Checklist+and+steps+once+a+release+is+approved . Thanks, I've added the points from my list. I've also called a vote in general for 2.9.4g. Personally I would have preferred it if you had waited until you got three +1s from this list. So far I've only seen Christopher's (and imply yours even though you didn't vote explicitly ;-). Once/if Michael gets around voting I'll throw in my +1 as well (on general and here). Stefan
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
My apologies for not waiting. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Stefan Bodewig Sent: 1/23/2012 9:02 AM To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2) On 2012-01-23, Prescott Nasser wrote: I've created a wiki page with the checklist: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Release+Checklist+and+steps+once+a+release+is+approved. Thanks, I've added the points from my list. I've also called a vote in general for 2.9.4g. Personally I would have preferred it if you had waited until you got three +1s from this list. So far I've only seen Christopher's (and imply yours even though you didn't vote explicitly ;-). Once/if Michael gets around voting I'll throw in my +1 as well (on general and here). Stefan
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
I've created a wiki page with the checklist: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Release+Checklist+and+steps+once+a+release+is+approved. I've also called a vote in general for 2.9.4g. ~Prescott
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
+1 for this release, btw. Regarding some of the things in the checklist, weren't we at some point going to setup some form of CI server for lucene? Sounds like some of this stuff can be automated and possibly make life a little easier for everyone. Thanks, Christopher On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.comwrote: Sounds like these should be incorporated into a wiki page for the project From: bode...@apache.org To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:37:58 +0100 Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2) On 2012-01-18, Michael Herndon wrote: Not be a miser, but I'm abstaining till we get a checklist for releases going. You know I don't perform any checks beyond what is required by ASF rules and policies, I don't even verify the DLLs in the binary release are .NET asemblies at all. I know that we need to check svn-eof Not really required. It would be nice if the line-ends in svn were set to native on text files but that is no release requirement. The source-bundle will have Windows lineends anyway (assuming the release is built on Windows). readme I didn't read it, but it sure should be sensible. use rat - apache license in files (if there is a tutorial on how to use that, I can take that over) Nothing beyond http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ - I am a developer on RAT so I certainly know how to work with it and I even patched RAT to better deal with .NET projects when creating the patches for Lucene. docs tickets some form release info (whats in the release) Yep. and I'm sure I'm missing stuff. I check the hashes and signatures match the archives, the source distribution matches the svn tag (running diff -rb), the LICENSE contains all licenses of stuff in the distribution and the NOTICE contains all required notices (but not more). For projects where I'm doing more than the legal sign-off I do: * build the source distribution and run all tests on it * build a binary distribution from the source distribution and check whether the differences between mine and the one the RM created are reasonable (timestamps, mostly, but for Java the .class files may be different for different JDK's javacs) * sometimes I try to run the tests against the artifacts of the binary release Stefan
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
On 2012-01-20, Prescott Nasser wrote: Sounds like these should be incorporated into a wiki page for the project True. Any preference about which page? Stefan
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
On 2012-01-18, Michael Herndon wrote: Not be a miser, but I'm abstaining till we get a checklist for releases going. You know I don't perform any checks beyond what is required by ASF rules and policies, I don't even verify the DLLs in the binary release are .NET asemblies at all. I know that we need to check svn-eof Not really required. It would be nice if the line-ends in svn were set to native on text files but that is no release requirement. The source-bundle will have Windows lineends anyway (assuming the release is built on Windows). readme I didn't read it, but it sure should be sensible. use rat - apache license in files (if there is a tutorial on how to use that, I can take that over) Nothing beyond http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ - I am a developer on RAT so I certainly know how to work with it and I even patched RAT to better deal with .NET projects when creating the patches for Lucene. docs tickets some form release info (whats in the release) Yep. and I'm sure I'm missing stuff. I check the hashes and signatures match the archives, the source distribution matches the svn tag (running diff -rb), the LICENSE contains all licenses of stuff in the distribution and the NOTICE contains all required notices (but not more). For projects where I'm doing more than the legal sign-off I do: * build the source distribution and run all tests on it * build a binary distribution from the source distribution and check whether the differences between mine and the one the RM created are reasonable (timestamps, mostly, but for Java the .class files may be different for different JDK's javacs) * sometimes I try to run the tests against the artifacts of the binary release Stefan
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
Sounds like these should be incorporated into a wiki page for the project From: bode...@apache.org To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:37:58 +0100 Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2) On 2012-01-18, Michael Herndon wrote: Not be a miser, but I'm abstaining till we get a checklist for releases going. You know I don't perform any checks beyond what is required by ASF rules and policies, I don't even verify the DLLs in the binary release are .NET asemblies at all. I know that we need to check svn-eof Not really required. It would be nice if the line-ends in svn were set to native on text files but that is no release requirement. The source-bundle will have Windows lineends anyway (assuming the release is built on Windows). readme I didn't read it, but it sure should be sensible. use rat - apache license in files (if there is a tutorial on how to use that, I can take that over) Nothing beyond http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ - I am a developer on RAT so I certainly know how to work with it and I even patched RAT to better deal with .NET projects when creating the patches for Lucene. docs tickets some form release info (whats in the release) Yep. and I'm sure I'm missing stuff. I check the hashes and signatures match the archives, the source distribution matches the svn tag (running diff -rb), the LICENSE contains all licenses of stuff in the distribution and the NOTICE contains all required notices (but not more). For projects where I'm doing more than the legal sign-off I do: * build the source distribution and run all tests on it * build a binary distribution from the source distribution and check whether the differences between mine and the one the RM created are reasonable (timestamps, mostly, but for Java the .class files may be different for different JDK's javacs) * sometimes I try to run the tests against the artifacts of the binary release Stefan
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
Not be a miser, but I'm abstaining till we get a checklist for releases going. I know that we need to check svn-eof readme use rat - apache license in files (if there is a tutorial on how to use that, I can take that over) docs tickets some form release info (whats in the release) and I'm sure I'm missing stuff. On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote: I can't speak for anyone else but I've been inordinately busy since before the holidays. I'll take a look over the release tomorrow. Thanks so much to Prescott and Stephan for keeping things moving along. Thanks, Troy On Jan 18, 2012 12:33 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: Hi Prescott, First of all, I should have said thank you. Thank you for putting together the release, thank you for dealing with my formal requirements that some may consider nit-picking and thank you for being persistent. On 2012-01-18, Prescott Nasser wrote: What do you mean I wouldn't get three +1s? From the license devs? ( this group seems a bit dead atm) or do you mean from the general? I meant this group. A release should be backed by the developers of the project and so far I doesn't look that way. Maybe people have just waited for me to perform the legal checks in order to avoid spending time reviewing a release that has to be recalled for non-technical reasons, I don't know. As for general. It sure would be nice if we could get all three mentors to vote before informing the general list. By the time you start the vote on general, you'll have my +1 and we will get two more of them by asking repeatedly, as usual. Stefan
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
On 2012-01-13, Prescott Nasser wrote: Alright, take 2. I've applied Stefan's patch and retagged the branch. I kept RC1 as it mostly stayed the same. http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/ https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g_RC1/ Please take a look and provide me your feedback. Signatures and hashes are good, License and NOTICE look fine, RAT seems reasonably happy, tag and source tarball match as much as they should (missing bin/lib/docs and the empty demo subdir of test). I do feel uncomfortable with the idea that you wouldn't get 3 +1s without me voting so I explicitly don't vote now but will be happy to provide my IPMC member +1 once the vote has reached the required votes from the community. Stefan
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
What do you mean I wouldn't get three +1s? From the license devs? ( this group seems a bit dead atm) or do you mean from the general? If you mean general - why do you think we won't get 3 votes? Sent from my Windows Phone From: Stefan Bodewig Sent: 1/17/2012 9:34 PM To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2) On 2012-01-13, Prescott Nasser wrote: Alright, take 2. I've applied Stefan's patch and retagged the branch. I kept RC1 as it mostly stayed the same. http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/ https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g_RC1/ Please take a look and provide me your feedback. Signatures and hashes are good, License and NOTICE look fine, RAT seems reasonably happy, tag and source tarball match as much as they should (missing bin/lib/docs and the empty demo subdir of test). I do feel uncomfortable with the idea that you wouldn't get 3 +1s without me voting so I explicitly don't vote now but will be happy to provide my IPMC member +1 once the vote has reached the required votes from the community. Stefan
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
That should read list devs..as in the license devs Sent from my Windows Phone From: Prescott Nasser Sent: 1/17/2012 9:57 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2) What do you mean I wouldn't get three +1s? From the license devs? ( this group seems a bit dead atm) or do you mean from the general? If you mean general - why do you think we won't get 3 votes? Sent from my Windows Phone From: Stefan Bodewig Sent: 1/17/2012 9:34 PM To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2) On 2012-01-13, Prescott Nasser wrote: Alright, take 2. I've applied Stefan's patch and retagged the branch. I kept RC1 as it mostly stayed the same. http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/ https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g_RC1/ Please take a look and provide me your feedback. Signatures and hashes are good, License and NOTICE look fine, RAT seems reasonably happy, tag and source tarball match as much as they should (missing bin/lib/docs and the empty demo subdir of test). I do feel uncomfortable with the idea that you wouldn't get 3 +1s without me voting so I explicitly don't vote now but will be happy to provide my IPMC member +1 once the vote has reached the required votes from the community. Stefan
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
Hopefully everyone is having a great weekend. If anyone could spare a few moments to review the 2.9.4g release, I'd appreciate it. Thanks,~Prescott From: geobmx...@hotmail.com To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:55:01 -0800 Subject: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2) Alright, take 2. I've applied Stefan's patch and retagged the branch. I kept RC1 as it mostly stayed the same. http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g_RC1/ Please take a look and provide me your feedback. ~Prescott
