lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject [Lucene.Net] Re: Signing Binary Releases
Date Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:34:23 GMT
All,

It seems there's some confusion about the term 'signed release' from
my question. I'm specifically referring to Apache's rules about
signing releases using OpenPGP. This is the part I need help with.

Creating a Strong Named Assembly (SNA) using a Strong Name Key (SNK)
file is easy and is also something we'll be doing shortly, though not
for the 2.9.2 binary release. I'm going to start a new thread under a
different title to discuss that topic.

Stefan - You indicated that the Apache signing process is
straightforward and simple, but the documentation is kind of all over
the place. It discusses so many edge cases and different methods for
doing this that it's hard to know what the correct one is.  I might be
missing something. Do you mind breaking it down for me in a very
simple step by step manner?

Thanks,
Troy

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stefan/DIGY,
>
> Have either of you gone through the process of making a signed release
> yourselves? I've been reading over the documentation, and well..
> That's a lot of documentation. It's hard to tell how much of this is
> relevant.
>
> I'd like to get myself set up to to do this but it seems a bit
> complex. The step by step instructions still left me with questions.
> I'd like to put together a wiki page of step-by-step set of
> instructions that are specific to our project.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Prescott,
>>
>> I think there is a misunderstanding about the release. In Apache way, a
>> release is a *signed* binary release(compiled version).
>>
>> Lucene.Net.dll has no dependency to other binaries(unless you want to test
>> or use compression) and they will not be included in the release.
>>
>> DIGY
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 1:04 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: sergey@mirvoda.com
>> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch?
>>
>> Yes that's the intention. I started to look at what Wyatt did
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-377. I think feel that it
>> works well as designed.
>>
>> Question: Wyatt has included the nunit.dll's I know we had a conversation
>> before about this. But I think being able to pull down everything, open a
>> single solution which has test, contrib, src, as well as the required
>> dependancies would be a huge boon to getting people to work on this stuff.
>>
>> Every change I need to make for 2.9.2-2.9.5 requires me to touch the tests.
>> it just makes sense from my perspective to have this 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 just be the src rolled up and packaged.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
>>> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:38:47 -0800
>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> CC: sergey@mirvoda.com
>>>
>>> It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a
>>> new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the
>>> changes are complete, then delete the branch.
>>>
>>> The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against
>>> the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible,
>>> unstable or un-buildable state.
>>>
>>> Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Troy
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> >>
>>> >> Although why wait until after the official release?
>>> >>
>>> >> Scott
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@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
>>> >> v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been
>> good to
>>> >> support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we
>> could
>>> >> update the trunk to support VS2010.
>>> >>
>>> >> Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 & 2.9.5) we have
to
>> update
>>> >> another repository also.
>>> >>
>>> >> DIGY
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: pnasser@apache.org [mailto:pnasser@apache.org]
>>> >> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM
>>> >> To: lucene-net-commits@lucene.apache.org
>>> >> Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
>>> >>
>>> >> Author: pnasser
>>> >> Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011
>>> >> New Revision: 1072121
>>> >>
>>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121&view=rev
>>> >> Log: (empty)
>>> >>
>>> >> Added:
>>> >> incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
>>> >> - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the
>>> >> use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
>>> >> contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or
>>> >> constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient
>>> >> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or
>>> >> distribution of this message, or files associated with this message,
>>> >> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
>>> >> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting
>>> >> it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
>>> >                                       =
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message