lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Vesse <rve...@dotnetrdf.org>
Subject Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 3.0.3 (Take 2)
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:26:29 GMT
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
View raw message