lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:37:58 GMT
On 2012-01-18, Michael Herndon wrote:

> Not be a miser, but I'm abstaining till we get a checklist for releases
> going.

You know I don't perform any checks beyond what is required by ASF rules
and policies, I don't even verify the DLLs in the binary release are
.NET asemblies at all.

> I know that we need to check
> svn-eof

Not really required.  It would be nice if the line-ends in svn were set
to native on text files but that is no release requirement.  The
source-bundle will have Windows lineends anyway (assuming the release is
built on Windows).

> readme

I didn't read it, but it sure should be sensible.

> use rat - apache license in files (if there is a tutorial on how to use
> that, I can take that over)

Nothing beyond - I am a developer on
RAT so I certainly know how to work with it and I even patched RAT to
better deal with .NET projects when creating the patches for Lucene.

> docs
> tickets
> some form release info (whats in the release)


> and I'm sure I'm missing stuff.

I check the hashes and signatures match the archives, the source
distribution matches the svn tag (running diff -rb), the LICENSE
contains all licenses of stuff in the distribution and the NOTICE
contains all required notices (but not more).

For projects where I'm doing more than the legal sign-off I do:

* build the source distribution and run all tests on it

* build a binary distribution from the source distribution and check
  whether the differences between mine and the one the RM created are
  reasonable (timestamps, mostly, but for Java the .class files may be
  different for different JDK's javacs)

* sometimes I try to run the tests against the artifacts of the binary


View raw message