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 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:31:22 GMT
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
>

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