lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amanuel Workneh <aman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4
Date Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:11:13 GMT
Builds fine.

Three failed tests,
Lucene.Net.Index.TestIndexWriterReader.TestDuringAddIndexes and
Lucene.Net.Index.TestIndexWriter.TestFutureCommit and
Lucene.Net.Store.TestWindowsMMap (MMapDirectory does not seem to be
ready for the world yet)

Related: What is the Hudkins status?


On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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