lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4
Date Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:17:15 GMT
Hudkins and plugins seems to work on the newest jenkins on windows 2008 r2.

I'm just waiting on a signal that the folder structure has been been redone
and finalized to move forward with geting a build script working on a local
server 2008 R2 install.  then submitting all the needs to get everything
working on hudkins and server 2008 to infrastructure.

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Amanuel Workneh <amanuel@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message