Looks like excludes clause in packaging is excluding everyting under classes
which the missing file is.
src/test/test-files/solr/lib/classes/empty-file-main-lib.txt
$ grep classes build.xml
<target name="javadoc-contrib" description="Generate javadoc for
contrib classes" depends="build-contrib">
classes we want to build factories for
files that this task should use when looking for classes that
FYI: The file ${stub.list} contains a list of classes
<!-- place to put special case classes we want to ignore -->
excludes="lib/README.committers.txt **/data/ **/logs/*
**/classes/ **/*.sh **/bin/ src/scripts/ src/site/build/ **/target/
client/ruby/flare/ client/python contrib/**/build/ **/*.iml **/*.ipr
**/*.iws contrib/clustering/example/lib/**
contrib/clustering/lib/downloads/**" />
So I guess it needs to be specifically included... or moved out from
under classes (I haven't looked at the test to see if it needs to be
there).
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Bill Au <bill.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The test case org.apache.solr.core.SolrCoreTest.txt is failing because of a
> problem with the test itself. A test data file it is expecting is missing.
> This should not hold up the release. But since we have a little time, maybe
> it is worth fixing.
>
> Bill
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> OK... looks like we'll need to re-spin.
>> We may have a few hours till that happens. Perhaps we should get in a
>> couple of the little bug fixes mentioned earlier.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1529
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1527
>>
>> any other low-risk or high priority bug fixes?
>>
>> -Yonik
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Yonik Seeley
>> <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>> >> Yes, it's too bad!
>> >>
>> >> But you will replace the lucene jars in the artifacts before releasing?
>> >> Because it would not be good to have jar files with version 2.9.1 in
>> >> the
>> >> package that are not the officially released 2.9.1 artifacts.
>> >
>> > Darn... forgot about the version number in the jars.
>> > Sigh.
>> >
>> > -Yonik
>> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
>> >
>
>
