lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
Date Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:18:20 GMT
LOL... We just wanted to see you grovel a little bit. ;)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ha - you guys rock
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Troy Howard
> Sent: 1/25/2012 4:37 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
>
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1
>> DIGY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:56 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take
2)
>>
>> Thanks for the +1, we need one more vote here, then Stefan will be comfortable giving
us a plus one, which will give us two plus ones in general, and ill only have to beg for one
more :)
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> ________________________________
>> From: Michael Herndon
>> Sent: 1/25/2012 11:15 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take
2)
>>
>> verified tests pass and checksums match.
>>
>> so +1
>>
>>
>> @P, I remember that thread.  Those guys stay busy though and devopt
>> mentality is different than a devs.
>>
>> Our needs probably exceed what the svn CMS is meant for due to
>> documentation.  I am curious if infra allows for or would allow us to throw
>> up a static mono/asp.net mvc in the future just so that we could dog food
>>  the site with search using Lucene.Net and then have it index certain pages
>> or sites (wiki, tutorials, static site, docs).   We'll probably need to dig
>> out our CMS options again and weight against short term and long term
>> goals.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> You know even making a small change to the website like updating the news
>>> takes like 30 minutes to run now because of all the files. Its absolutely
>>> ridiculous.
>>>
>>> I got chided by the CMS group, yet when asked how do we put documentation
>>> online with the new system there were crickets.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Michael Herndon
>>> Sent: 1/25/2012 8:26 AM
>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1
>>> Release (take 2)
>>>
>>> I was not able to download the binaries till this morning.  The wiki was
>>> also having issues.
>>>
>>> I ran rat on the the released source, that seems fine. did a compare on src
>>> zip and the tag. it matches.
>>>
>>> The only things I saw are nit picks.
>>> in the ReadMe the link should point to its respective tag instead of RC3
>>> for just 2_9_4
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/lib/should
>>> be
>>>
>>> when releasing the source in the future, we should either include a script
>>> that pulls the lib for the developers who want to compile from source
>>> inside a tag when the project is built using the solution. Or we should
>>> invest into using something like nuget for dependencies so that the
>>> dependencies are automatically fetched somehow and we can remove those from
>>> svn/scm altogether.
>>>
>>> the source currently violates the "don't make me think about it" principle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I know we all dislike chms, but until we figure out a better way of posting
>>> the generated msdn documentation online, we should include that in releases
>>> as well.  The static website version generates a high number of static html
>>> files and our current CMS requires that those files are pushed into SVN
>>> which just is not feasible. Committing that all at once will choke infra's
>>> setup (and if they hired ninjas to pay us a visit, I probably wouldn't
>>> blame them) and doing partial commits is just borderline insanity.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just waiting on the all the tests to finish running.
>>> http://xkcd.com/303/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn?
>>> >
>>> > Pretty much a long and boring manual process.  I did something like
>>> >
>>> > find . -name \*.cs -print0 | xargs -0 -e svn ps svn:eol-style native
>>> >
>>> > i.e. tried to set the eol-style property on all C# source files.  This
>>> > won't do anything if the property is set and tell you it has changed
>>> > something in "svn status" if it the property hasn't been set before.
>>> >
>>> > svn will also fail if the file in question contains inconsistent line
>>> > ends, this is the case for the NUnit doc files and even some of
>>> > Lucene.NET sources.
>>> >
>>> > Repeat for all other file extension that should map to text files.
>>> >
>>> > > I'm setting up RAT on my local.  Are there any other tools that you
or
>>> > ASF
>>> > > recommends in general to validate releases?
>>> >
>>> > I think Sebb has a bunch of scripts he uses, but never bothered to look
>>> > them up.  If so, they'd be inside the comitters svn repo.
>>> >
>>> > For this release you don't even need to check line-feeds, the properties
>>> > have not been set on all files.  The patch I provided a while ago only
>>> > applied to trunk.  To me this is no reason to stop the release, in
>>> > particular since most files have Windows line-ends and Prescott built
>>> > the release on Windows so the files would be the same with and without
>>> > svn:eol-style anyway.
>>> >
>>> > I intend to provide a new patch for the 3.0.3 branch once you have
>>> > decided which way to go.  Most likely there'll be files without license
>>> > headers in that branch as well.
>>> >
>>> > Stefan
>>> >
>>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4765 - Release Date: 01/25/12
>>

Mime
View raw message