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] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
Date Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:40:36 GMT
@chris,  see  https://builds.apache.org/. There are jobs running. The
overall set ups are not finished. There are some of the issues of getting
the dependent software installed and working with infra on this and working
on some of the pains of running tests & coverage reports working correctly.

Since it takes an around an hour or more to run the full build with tests,
coverage, and docs, it can painful working on testing changes with the
build at times and easy to burn out on.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Christopher Currens <
currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for this release, btw.
>
> Regarding some of the things in the checklist, weren't we at some point
> going to setup some form of CI server for lucene?  Sounds like some of this
> stuff can be automated and possibly make life a little easier for everyone.
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > Sounds like these should be incorporated into a wiki page for the project
> >  > From: bodewig@apache.org
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:37:58 +0100
> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1
> > Release (take 2)
> > >
> > > 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 http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ - 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)
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > > 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
> > >   release
> > >
> > > Stefan
> >
> >
>

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