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 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:59:53 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message