lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Granroth, Neal V." <neal.granr...@thermofisher.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4
Date Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:37:51 GMT

No, the URL in DIGY's email apepars correct and the SVN revision appears to be 1086410.

Question: Should there be a tag for Lucene.Net_2_9_4 as there are for previous release candidates?

- Neal

-----Original Message-----
From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:15 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: digy digy
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4

Thanks. For anyone watching, the corrected clickable link is
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/.

Also, just to make sure we are looking at this right, the revision we
should be using is 1089138 -- main thing is I've been in and out of
town, not caught up on anything and I'd hate to start building stuff
against the wrong version . .

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:10 PM, digy digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, no binaries. You can download the source from
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C#/src/Lucene.Net
>
> DIGY
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Actually about to dive into a big search tweaking spike in a certain
>> project here, happy to do it on 2.9.4. Got binaries?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > We don't have any sort of QA report on the latest build. DIGY called
>> > for testing, but I haven't seen anyone respond to that request
>> > indicating successful testing.
>> >
>> > So, how do we want to manage this?
>> >
>> > In the business world, we'd never think of making a release without
>> > extensive QA first. In my other open source projects, either we've
>> > managed QA ourselves by 'switching hats' for a couple weeks prior to
>> > release, or just crossed our fingers because the user base was too
>> > small.
>> >
>> > Lucene.Net is a fairly high-profile project, with a large user base. I
>> > think it would not be responsible to make a release without a formal
>> > QA process. We do have extensive unit tests, but do you think those
>> > are sufficient to cover our QA needs? Should we try to find community
>> > members with a specialty in software testing that would be willing to
>> > fulfill this role on our project? Should we just swap hats?
>> >
>> > I didn't worry about this issue with the latest 2.9.2 release because
>> > it was QAed by the user base for a long time before it was an
>> > 'official release'. Maybe this is an effective tactic? Release first,
>> > and let the user base roll in bug reports fixing them on yet later
>> > minor maintenance releases? This seems to be the method a lot of
>> > projects use (i.e. no specific QA process, but rather an organic
>> > process of 'try our best then deal with bug reports later').
>> >
>> > What do we think about this?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Troy
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hey all,
>> >>
>> >> I know we have a number of outstanding JIRA issues, but I think most of
>> them have been handled for the 2.9.4 release? Do we have anything
>> outstanding that is holding back a new release?
>> >>
>> >> ~P
>> >
>>
>

Mime
View raw message