lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:24:08 GMT

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