lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 3.0.3 (Take 2)
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:33:27 GMT
Regarding the files location -- Yeah, this is how it's always been with
this project (and with most if not all Apache projects). IMO there is
really no risk involved as the validity of the files can be proven. The
files are staged in this way until they pass the vote, at which point, they
can be moved to the official location (which will be mirrored out through
the various distribution channels).

Thanks,
Troy

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:

> Neal - I'm not sure what the issue is here? The signatures and checksums
> are all present in the directory so anyone can verify that the files have
> been signed by the Lucene.Net guys and that the files have not been
> tampered with
>
> This is normal Apache process, the release candidates are open to anyone
> to test and vote upon (though only PMC members have binding votes). The
> main point of making it available in this way at this stage is primarily
> for the PMC to review and vote on the release.  This vote is for so there
> are multiple eyes checking that the release meets the Apache guidelines
> (http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html) in terms of licensing,
> source code release etc.
>
> Prescott - As far as I'm aware what you've done is completely fine though
> you may want to check in with your incubation mentors if they are still
> monitoring the project.
>
> We use the same process for Apache Jena, the release candidates are
> published in the Apache webspace of whoever is acting as Release Manager
> for the release.  Since they are release candidates they should not be
> uploaded to the official distribution area for the project because they
> have not yet been approved by the PMC as a release (and uploading them to
> the distribution area would get them mirrored across the entire mirror
> network which is not what you want!)
>
> HTH,
>
> Rob
>
>
> On 10/1/12 8:08 AM, "Prescott Nasser" <geobmx540@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Where should they be placed? In the Incubator that's how we always cut a
> >release until it was approved, then files were uploaded to dist. I'm
> >happy to get them in the appropriate location.
> >
> >> From: neal.granroth@thermofisher.com
> >> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:56:45 -0700
> >> Subject: RE: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 3.0.3 (Take 2)
> >>
> >> These files should not be used as representative of the 3.0.3 RC
> >> While I believe you have a good intent; as these files are simply
> >>within a personal folder there's no official control, they cannot and
> >>should not be trusted for any use.
> >>
> >> - Neal G.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 6:20 PM
> >> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 3.0.3 (Take 2)
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/3.0.3-RC1/
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------
> >> > From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >> > Subject: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 3.0.3 (Take 2)
> >> > Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:18:53 -0700
> >> >
> >> > Alright, made updates to the binary releases to include the .pdb as
> >>well as missing Spatial.NTS binaries. I didn't change anything about the
> >>source files, which is why I didn't upgrade the number to RC2.
> >> >
> >> > Again if you don't mind:
> >> >
> >> > +1 go go go
> >> > 0 eh..
> >> > -1 still have a few issues.
> >> >
> >> > Please review the source and binaries to make sure we're not missing
> >>anything - doing this with a half year in between doesn't make me super
> >>confident I've got it 100% right.
> >> >
> >> > ~P
> >
>
>
>
>
>

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