I agree with DIGY.
Although why wait until after the official release?
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
>
> Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since
> v2.0 and people have to compile the sou
27 AM, Lombard, Scott > wrote:
>
>> I agree with DIGY.
>>
>> Although why wait until after the official release?
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, F
gy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
>>
>> Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since
&g
riginal Message-
>>> From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
>>>
>>> Do we really
cott <
> slomb...@kingindustries.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree with DIGY.
> >>>
> >>> Although why wait until after the official release?
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
I agree with DIGY.
Although why wait until after the official release?
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
To: lucene
]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:39 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: Sergey Mirvoda
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
>
> It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a
> new feature, then m
2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott <
> slomb...@kingindustries.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree with DIGY.
> >>>
> >>> Although why wait until after the official release?
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
&
irvoda [mailto:ser...@mirvoda.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:56 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
>
> Why with 2.0 and not with 4.0 targeting 2.0?
>
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:54 AM,
ent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:56 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
>>
>> Why with 2.0 and not with 4.0 targeting 2.0?
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Wyatt Barnett
&g
What I meant was a binary release.
DIGY.
-Original Message-
From: Sergey Mirvoda [mailto:ser...@mirvoda.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 12:02 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
4.0 rules them all. You
-Original Message-
From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 1:04 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: ser...@mirvoda.com
Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
> Perhaps that's Prescott's i
gt;
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda wrote:
> > > +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott > >> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I agree with DIGY.
> > >>
> > &
g in the source control, or
> something I should keep to my local? Also, I don't recall the legal stuff
> behind including nunit.
>
> Obviously a release would just be the src rolled up and packaged.
>
>
>
>
> --------
>>
l, or
> something I should keep to my local? Also, I don't recall the legal stuff
> behind including nunit.
>
> Obviously a release would just be the src rolled up and packaged.
>
>
>
>
> ------------
>> From: thowar...@gmail.com
>&g
is all in the same
> solution ready to roll.
> >
> > Is this something people are open too having in the source control, or
> something I should keep to my local? Also, I don't recall the legal stuff
> behind including nunit.
> >
> > Obviously a release would
On 2011-02-19, Digy wrote:
> I think there is a misunderstanding about the release. In Apache way, a
> release is a *signed* binary release(compiled version).
Uhm no.
Apache releases are OpenPGP signed bundles of source code (zip or tar.gz
doesn't matter).
Any "binary distribution" you create i
On 2011-02-19, Troy Howard wrote:
> Disclaimer: Troy's Personal Opinions (tm) which may be controversial,
> will be found below
> Regarding the idea of 'feature branches', I guess I should make it
> clear that I personally don't agree with this workflow in SVN.
> This is completely appropriate f
19 matches
Mail list logo
