lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From digy digy <digyd...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4
Date Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:46:58 GMT
Thanks, updated.

DIGY

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Granroth, Neal V. <
neal.granroth@thermofisher.com> wrote:

>
> 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 The assembly copyright information appears to be out of date; shouldn't it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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message