lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Pook <andy.p...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: 3.0.3
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2012 00:11:36 GMT
Oops looks like I replied to you direct rather than the list...

The thing that I am drawn too is the RC in the naming. Maybe it's just me
but something which that in the filename suggests that the contents are an
RC not the final release. I think that someone coming fresh to the project
would just see RC and think "this isn't the final cut. They're not done
yet.  I'll wait for them to finish".

If I'm looking for v3.0.3 I think I'd expect to see just that and not with
some suffix.
I think having RC tags is good (though I've seen some projects vote on a
revision of a version branch). But once the vote passes on the final
iteration, a tag is taken from the voted revision named for the version
number without the RC and the artifacts generated from that. It'd be nice
to get the revision number into the info version of the DLL too (that might
be step too far but I like to know about where the DLL was generated from).

This time around maybe just renaming the binaries and adding a readme that
states what rev/tag they where built from would be more than enough.
I certainly wouldn't want to add any workload. I'm sure there are far more
productive and interesting things to be done.

I also want to add my appreciation for everyone's hard work. My companies
product would not be were it is without Lucene.

Thanks
 On 31 Oct 2012 17:51, "Prescott Nasser" <geobmx540@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  No RC2 was the final release of 3.0.3. Voted and passed. Thats what is
> in the nuget packages. Is the naming still unclear? What do you think will
> make it more clear
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
>  ------------------------------
> From: Andy Pook
> Sent: 10/31/2012 10:31 AM
> To: Prescott Nasser
> Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>
> So we're not done with 3.0.3 yet? This is "just" an RC?
> There don't seem to be any 3.0.3 issues left in JIra. What needs to be
> done to make this 3.0.3 final? Is this just a cooling off period to see if
> anything comes back from the community?
> Hmm, that's me! What sort of feedback is useful, other than "it works for
> me".
>
>
> On 31 October 2012 16:22, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're absolutely right, and this was entirely my fault. I've updated the
> tags to have RC2_final, updated the blog (and responded to some comments
> there), and republished the homepage to reflect the changed blog post.
>
> Is there anything I missed?
>
> I'll make sure we're more buttoned up with future releases.
>
> ~P
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:09:12 +0300
> > From: xzxz@mail.ru
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > CC: andy.pook@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>  >
> > +1
> >
> > 31.10.2012 13:26, Andy Pook пишет:
> > > Just nit picking at the details...
> > >
> > > The announcement at
> > > https://blogs.apache.org/lucenenet/entry/lucene_net_3_0_3 points to
> an svn
> > > tag for RC1. The binaries have RC2 in the name. It's not clear what
> > > revision the nuget packages are built from.
> > >
> > > It's not clear if the vote was for RC2 to be accepted and final will be
> > > later or for RC2 to become final?
> > > The announcement suggests that it's 3.0.3 "final" but the links are for
> > > various RCs.
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure that I understand what is what as I follow the mailing
> list
> > > and the commit logs. But I think that a newcomer might be a little
> > > confused. It would be "nice" for our public image if the filenames,
> tags
> > > and packages lined up.
> > >
> >
>
>
>

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