lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marko Lahma" <marko.la...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Date Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:15:03 GMT
+1

-Marko

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:18 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
> I would like to suggest that we make the next release candidate 2.3.2 (not
> 2.3.1).  I have made all patches for this code available on the list and
> they satisfy all the unit tests.  Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release is
> only a bug-fix release, not a feature release (see
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/CHANGES.txt).
>
> Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as compared to those
> of Lucene), continuity is no reason to release a 2.3.1 version.  In fact,
> separate releases of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when users
> will only want the 2.3.2 release.
>
> Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net-dev/200810.mbo
> x/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Please comment.
>
> Thanks,
> Doug
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally release
>> (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) before you
> bring
>> in 2.3.2 code base.  Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is a
>> formal process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing list or
>> ASF website to find out more.  Making a release is an important part and a
>> required process toward a graduation from incubation; it's important that
>> you and DIGY experience a formal release process.
>>
>> Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has tested it
>> without
>> issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is made from the
>> "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn copy".)  Once this happens, then
>> the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
>>
>> So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's important
>> to get the current version into RC status.  For this to happen, the points
>> I
>> highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -- George
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
>> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>> >
>> > I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
>> > ASAP, as I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2
>> > port.  From a repository perspective, what is the protocol
>> > for tagging releases?
>> >
>> > (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
>> > committing the
>> > 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
>> >
>> > -Doug
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
>> > Let's name it
>> > > "mature version" for now.
>> > >
>> > > DIGY.
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
>> > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
>> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>> > >
>> > > Hi DIGY,
>> > >
>> > > Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to
>> > > release candidate, those are:
>> > >
>> > > 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
>> > > assembly version.
>> > > 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
>> > > fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
>> > > candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
>> > >
>> > > After those changes, the community should start using the code off
>> > > this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
>> > a vote for
>> > > release should be called.
>> > >
>> > > One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
>> > a build for
>> > > RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take
>> > > the time and do some basic test on this area too.  Have the
>> > same index
>> > > be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > -- George
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
>> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi All,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
>> > > > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
>> > > >
>> > > > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > DIGY
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
>> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
>> > release.  It
>> > > > diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
>> > > >
>> > > > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
>> > > >
>> > > > patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
>> > > >
>> > > > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
>> > > >
>> > > > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
>> > > >
>> > > > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
>> > for those
>> > > > of you who would like to try it out.
>> > > >
>> > > > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
>> > > > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
>> > > >
>> > > > - Doug
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message