RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 release couldn't be compiled for .Net3.5

12/6/2011 5:42 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 release couldn't be compiled for .Net3.5 Hi Alexey, I believe this version of Lucene.Net will be the last version that can be compiled with the .NET 2.0 runtime which is what .NET 3.5 runs on. There was a

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 release couldn't be compiled for .Net3.5

Hi Alexey, I believe this version of Lucene.Net will be the last version that can be compiled with the .NET 2.0 runtime which is what .NET 3.5 runs on. There was a vote on supported runtime versions by the community this past year, The community widely supported to drop .NET 2.0 runtime after the

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 is a go for release

On 2011-11-29, Prescott Nasser wrote: > 1. Move the artifacts to the distribution place (not sure where or how yet) /www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/lucene.net/ make sure all files and directories are owned by the group incubator and group writable. If you create new directories, set the stic

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 RC1

> > > Done - i've uploaded the new files to the same place. I actually found > > an issue with the bin.zip file, so it was good that I merged that bug > > fix in. > > I'm pretty sure you know that, but if you decide to do something like > this after you've started the vote, please cancel the vote,

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 RC1

Hi Prescott, thank you for pushing things forward. On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote: > Done - i've uploaded the new files to the same place. I actually found > an issue with the bin.zip file, so it was good that I merged that bug > fix in. I'm pretty sure you know that, but if you decide to

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 RC1

sues with these ~Prescott > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 01:14:52 +0200 > From: ita...@code972.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 RC1 > > Any chance you guys fix and merge this > https://issues.

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 RC1

Any chance you guys fix and merge this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-450 before releasing? On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Prescott Nasser wrote: > > > > Alright- this took me way too long, I'm sorry for that. > > > > Could you guys please take a look at: > http://people.apach

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

On 2011-10-03, Prescott Nasser wrote: > I think we're ready, i just dont know the procedures to call a vote. Don't know the exact details for Lucene.Net but the general approach is likely always the same. * Make sure your PGP key is inside the KEYS file people will use to check the artifacts

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 Hi guys, What's the status of this? Is there anything I can do to help to wrap everything up and make a release? You can also grab whatever you want from https://github.com/synhershko/Lucene.Net.Contrib - send me the docs

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

Hi guys, What's the status of this? Is there anything I can do to help to wrap everything up and make a release? You can also grab whatever you want from https://github.com/synhershko/Lucene.Net.Contrib - send me the docs you want me to sign. Itamar. On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Prescott N

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

--- > > From: casper...@caspershouse.com > > To: geobmx...@hotmail.com; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:33:03 -0700 > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 > > > > NP > > > > --

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

ings - is there anything else holding us up from a 2.9.4 release at this point? ~P > From: casper...@caspershouse.com > To: geobmx...@hotmail.com; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:33:03 -0700 > Subject: RE

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

So I now have the scripts exporting the html site. Does the current cms/site some how link to ~/site/docs ? Or if we publish the documents online they would need to into two directories ~/site/docs/ for posterity & ~/site/trunk/content/ lucene.net/docs/ for everyone to view them online? On Wed,

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

NP From: "Prescott Nasser" Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:31 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org, casper...@caspershouse.com Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 That helps thanks. No Jira although I will put one in. Sent from my Win

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

That helps thanks. No Jira although I will put one in. Sent from my Windows Phone -Original Message- From: casper...@caspershouse.com Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 6:05 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 Prescott, You can do one of two things

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

--- From: "Prescott Nasser" Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 1:17 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 I see, so you're essentially saying, I can simply remove the volatile keyword in this case, and it's exactly the same becuase I am onl

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

d becuase those are merely reads and wrights? > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > From: casper...@caspershouse.com > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:58:42 -0400 > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 > > Prescott, > > Yo

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

t;>> Troy >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Michael Herndon >>> wrote: >>>> if thats the case, then well need conditional statements for including >>>> ThreadLocal >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Presco

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

The line before had volatile in it.. private volatile System.IO.StreamWriter infoStream; > From: geobmx...@hotmail.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:14:41 -0700 > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 >

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

after 2.9.4 > > >> > > >> Sent from my Windows Phone > > >> > > >> -----Original Message- > > >> From: Michael Herndon > > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:30 AM > > >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 Hi Digy, On 21.09.2011 23:38, Digy wrote: > @Robert > >> Also, the fix for [LUCENENET-358] is basically making Lucene.Net.dll a > .NET 4.0-only assembly: > > There is a commented part at the end of the CloseableThreadLocal which may &

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

e? Thanks, DIGY -Original Message- From: Robert Jordan [mailto:robe...@gmx.net] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:16 AM To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 Hi Digy, On 21.09.2011 23:38, Digy wrote: > @Robert > >> Also, the fix for [LUCENEN

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

est cases. DIGY -Original Message- From: Robert Jordan [mailto:robe...@gmx.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:09 PM To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 On 20.09.2011 23:48, Prescott Nasser wrote: > Hey all seems like we are set with

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

ptember 21, 2011 10:40 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 @all, I updated the build scripts to increase it's granularity. https://cwiki.apache.org/LUCENENET/build-system-scripts.html Similarity was include, though are there any tests for this project ?

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

; > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Prescott Nasser >wrote: > > > >> I thought this was after 2.9.4 > >> > >> Sent from my Windows Phone > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Michael Herndon > >> Sent: Wednesday, Se

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

AM >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 >> >> @Robert, >> >> I believe the overwhelming consensus on the mailing list vote was to move >> to >> .NET 4.0 and drop support for previous

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

My opinion is that: SVN should not hold generated files, including XML/HTML docs. The *binary* release packages should contain the .xml files so that VS can intellisense intelligently against the DLLs, and that HTML docs should be included so they are available online or offline. But... online H

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

I'm with you on checking in the static files into ~/site/doc/version that would be pretty easy to automate from jenkins & msbuild if we can get the docs into static html. I currently just push all assemblies, help files, xml docs into ~/trunk/bin on the user's local once the scripts finish build

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

Why would we want to do that? Under the /site/docs directory, they need to be served up as loose HTML... IMO the XML files shouldn't be checked into SVN because they are auto-generated. The same goes for Sandcastle files.. However, in the release packages, I think we should include the XML files

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

Could we store sandcastle docs as a single zip/chm? On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Troy Howard wrote: > At one time I had a SVN server set up at work that had a post-commit > hook set up that would generate a static HTML site from the XML doc > files using Sandcastle. So.. It can be done. T

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

At one time I had a SVN server set up at work that had a post-commit hook set up that would generate a static HTML site from the XML doc files using Sandcastle. So.. It can be done. That was about 3-4 years ago and I don't work at that company any longer, so I don't have access to the details of ho

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

>We have a folder /trunk/docs, shouldn't this be the place for that? We should have a live site for the documentation that people can browse, similar to the parent project's site. http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_4_0/api/all/index.html. It makes it the documentation more accessible. The rub is tha

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

> > We should probably fix the ClsCompliance warnings if they have not already > been fixed We will have some issues with this - some are marked volatile - which basically have to be a non-CLS compliant type (as far as my research is finding) Anyone have thoughts? I went through and repl

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

Big OK from our end Sorry to be nagging on this again, but it would be very nice if you could incorporate https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-431 in 2.9.4 as well. It is one of those bugfixes that really fix a lot more than they can possible break, so I hope this will justify a small d

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

Thanks Itamar! > > > > Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:22:59 +0300 > > From: ita...@code972.com > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 > > > > We have been running some extensive tests

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

Thanks Itamar! > Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:22:59 +0300 > From: ita...@code972.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 > > We have been running some extensive tests >30hrs now against the 2.9.4

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

Good news. Thanks Itamar. DIGY -Original Message- From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 8:23 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 We have been running

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

ecause that will be our next official > release. > > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Herndon > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:12 AM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 > > &

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

2.9.4g > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/branches/Lucene.Net_2_ > > >> > 9_4g/ > > >> > > > >> > Both versions include ThreadLocal fix + Signing. > >

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

gt; 2.9.4g > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/branches/Lucene.Net_2_ > > >> > 9_4g/ > > >> > > > >> > Both versions include ThreadLocal fix + Signing. >

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

et/branches/Lucene.Net_2_ > >> > 9_4g/ > >> > > >> > Both versions include ThreadLocal fix + Signing. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > DIGY > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -Original

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

Thanks, >> > DIGY >> > >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] >> On >> > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko >> > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

27;t > > seem to resolve the issue brought up > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > ~P > > > > ---- > > > From: digyd...@gmail.com > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > D

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

nderstood the complaint/question as adding that one method to me doesn't > seem to resolve the issue brought up > > > > Thanks, > > ~P > > > > From: digyd...@gmail.com > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > >

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

On 2011-09-07, Michael Herndon wrote: > Stefan Bodewig might still be away He is back ;-) > and I think we need his vote on the release when the time > comes. (correct me, because I could be uber wrong). For the release you need three +1s by Incubator PMC members. After voting here a second vo

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

On 2011-09-06, Michael Herndon wrote: > I can't tell if the apache git mirror is updated via scheduler or from > commit hooks, but its generally stays close to being on par with svn. The one at git.apache.org is updated via commit hooks, see . Don't know about

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

't > seem to resolve the issue brought up > > > > Thanks, > > ~P > > > > From: digyd...@gmail.com > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 23:14:37 +0300 > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Ne

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

x + Signing. > > > > Thanks, > > DIGY > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] > On > > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko > > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:34

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

thod to me doesn't seem to resolve the issue brought up Thanks, ~P > From: digyd...@gmail.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 23:14:37 +0300 > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 > > +1 for an official

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

> Both versions include ThreadLocal fix + Signing. > > Thanks, > DIGY > > > > -Original Message- > From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:34 AM > To: l

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

gning. Thanks, DIGY -Original Message- From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:34 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 Not a problem, we will test RavenDB

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

oid misunderstanding... > > Community==all Lucene.Net users > > DIGY > > -Original Message- > From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 11:46 PM > To: 'lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org' > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 >

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

ous. When it dies down, I assume issues are shaken out and things are somewhat vetted. ~P > From: digyd...@gmail.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 00:48:02 +0300 > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 > >

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

To avoid misunderstanding... Community==all Lucene.Net users DIGY -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 11:46 PM To: 'lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org' Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 Not bad idea, but I would prefer c

Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

If you want to test it against a large project you could take a look at how RavenDB uses it? At the moment it's using 2.9.2 ( https://github.com/ayende/ravendb/tree/master/SharedLibs/Sources/Lucene2.9.2) but if you were to recompile it against 2.9.4 and check that all it's unit-tests still run tha

RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4

There is an issue still open(LUCENENET-414) related with StopWords. DIGY -Original Message- From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 9:22 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4