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 20:34:38 GMT

I had no difficulty building it in Visual Studio 2005.
The assembly copyright information appears to be out of date; shouldn't it read 2011 not 2009
?


- Neal

-----Original Message-----
From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 2:23 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Troy Howard
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4

Tag [+1]

svn export and command line build successful; I'll keep you all posted . . .

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. Once we're ready to call this revision an RC, it should be tagged as such.
>
> Wyatt: Thanks for helping to test! Looking forward to your results.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Granroth, Neal V.
> <neal.granroth@thermofisher.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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