Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1

2011-02-25 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2011-02-23, Stefan Bodewig wrote: Not only cosmetic: * The NOTICE file contains a bad copyright year and doesn't talk about Lucene.NET at all. Make that Lucene.NET rather than Lucene and 2006-2011. * LICENSE talks about src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/UnicodeUtil.java and

Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1

2011-02-25 Thread Troy Howard
Stefan, I'm pretty close to finishing a second release candidate... Been busy today/yesterday. Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: On 2011-02-23, Stefan Bodewig wrote: Not only cosmetic: * The NOTICE file contains a bad copyright year and

Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1

2011-02-25 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2011-02-25, Troy Howard wrote: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: Unless anybody yells I'll put some time aside today to create a patch that fixes the issues in trunk and should hopefully be easy to merge to the 2.9.2 tag/branch and will attach it to

[Lucene.Net] [jira] Commented: (LUCENENET-400) Evaluate tooling for continuous integration server

2011-02-25 Thread Andrey (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-400?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12999301#comment-12999301 ] Andrey commented on LUCENENET-400: -- I recommended to use for CI a

Re: [Lucene.Net] svn commit: r1074470 - in /incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_2_RC1: contrib/WordNet.Net/WordNet.Net/SynExpand/ contrib/WordNet.Net/WordNet.Net/SynLookup/ contrib/WordNet.Net/Wo

2011-02-25 Thread Troy Howard
No problem. Updated them, and a new release candidate is ready (posting now). Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: On 2011-02-25, thow...@apache.org wrote: Added app.configs (missing from previous commit) They need licenses as well.  Sorry

[Lucene.Net] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1

2011-02-25 Thread Troy Howard
All, This vote is being closed as not passing due to the valid issues Stefan raised. Thanks, Troy On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote: All, I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1 is available and ready for your testing and voting.

[Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC2

2011-02-25 Thread Troy Howard
All, I'm happy to announce that Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC2 is available and ready for your testing and voting. Release candidate artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~thoward/Lucene.Net/2.9.2-incubating-RC2/dist/ SVN tag revision:

RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC2

2011-02-25 Thread Granroth, Neal V.
Troy, The source in the SVN tag does not build: Lucene.Net.Core.sln(1): Solution file error MSB5014: File format version is not recognized. MSBuild can only read solution files between versions 7.0 and 9.0, inclusive. - Neal -Original Message- From: Troy Howard

Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC2

2011-02-25 Thread Troy Howard
It's a VS2010 solution file. What version are you using? Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Granroth, Neal V. neal.granr...@thermofisher.com wrote: Troy, The source in the SVN tag does not build: Lucene.Net.Core.sln(1): Solution file error MSB5014: File format version is not

Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC2

2011-02-25 Thread Troy Howard
We should probably include documentation somewhere that building requires either MsBuild from 3.5 or higher .NET framework install or a version of VS2010 (Express works fine). Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote: It's a VS2010 solution file. What

Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC2

2011-02-25 Thread Stefan Bodewig
Hi, I've updated the RAT reports at http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/Lucene.NET/ Binary looks good to me as I know the .xml files are generated, the source archive still contains a file licensed under the 1.1 version (TestSnowball.cs) and the .nunit, .config, .ndoc and build.xml files could

RE: [Lucene.Net] [jira] Commented: (LUCENENET-377) Upgrade solution to VS2010

2011-02-25 Thread Digy
What about this source tree? RC2 build contrib core Lucene.Net Test demo src doesn't mean anything since other dirs contain sources as well. DIGY -Original Message- From: Troy Howard (JIRA) [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 9:18 PM

Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC2

2011-02-25 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2011-02-25, Troy Howard wrote: I updated the .src zip and associated checksums/signatures at: I have verified the bin zip is still the same that I checked. All signatures and hashes are fine, RAT is reasonably happy with the src zip (I've updated

Re: [Lucene.Net] [jira] Commented: (LUCENENET-377) Upgrade solution to VS2010

2011-02-25 Thread Troy Howard
Sounds good to me. At some point I'd like to address namespace mappings too... But perhaps that's best deferred for the 3.x reworking? Also, there are a number of less-than-useful documentation files (html) and other random files that seem to come from the Java world. It would be nice to clean

[Lucene.Net] [jira] Commented: (LUCENENET-377) Upgrade solution to VS2010

2011-02-25 Thread Prescott Nasser (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-377?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12999618#comment-12999618 ] Prescott Nasser commented on LUCENENET-377: --- probably should wipe out the

[Lucene.Net] Anybody at the MVP summit?

2011-02-25 Thread Simone Chiaretta
Hi all, I was wondering if someone of the committers or the contributors will be at the MVP summit next week. Would have been nice to have chat in person. Simone From PiyoPad

Re: [Lucene.Net] [jira] Commented: (LUCENENET-377) Upgrade solution to VS2010

2011-02-25 Thread Wyatt Barnett
One thing I'm not quite following -- why does one need a solution for every single project? Point of solution files is so one can have multiple projects linked in realish time, so we probably need a single solution for everything or perhaps two covering core lucene and contrib. On Fri, Feb 25,

RE: [Lucene.Net] [jira] Commented: (LUCENENET-377) Upgrade solution to VS2010

2011-02-25 Thread Digy
First of all, I don't want to start a flame war. What I want to say is: This is just what made sense while building this release might not make sense for all. (I must admit, it is better than the previous one) DIGY -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]

[Lucene.Net] [VOTE] New website / layout looks

2011-02-25 Thread Prescott Nasser
Hey all, I've uploaded two potential new layouts / site designs: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-403. Troy has also hosted them live in his people.apache.org account: http://people.apache.org/~thoward/Lucene.Net/site/layout1/

RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] New website / layout looks

2011-02-25 Thread Prescott Nasser
Oh, also, +1 for Layout1 ~Prescott From: geobmx...@hotmail.com To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:03:35 -0800 Subject: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] New website / layout looks Hey all, I've uploaded two potential new