lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Haws <cri...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: AW: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
Date Sat, 06 May 2017 02:13:12 GMT
+1
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:20 PM Srini V <vgeneral7@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1.  I agree with Daniel said. Very much appreciated. Thank you
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On May 5, 2017, at 20:04, Roethinger, Alexander <aroethinger@affili.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > I can only agree to what Daniel said.
> > Really great work and very much appreciated!
> > So +1 from me as well.
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> > -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Daniel Kornev [mailto:daniel@zetuniverse.com]
> > Gesendet: Samstag, 6. Mai 2017 02:36
> > An: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Betreff: RE: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
> >
> > Not sure if regular members votes make any sense in the process, but +1
> from me regardless. I've been following your journey for the last few
> years, and I applaud to great work done.
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Shad Storhaug<mailto:shad@shadstorhaug.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 3:15 AM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org<mailto:dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
> > Subject: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
> >
> >
> >
> > So, after 4 1/2 years of silence, we are ready to shake up the world
> with a new version of Lucene.Net.
> >
> >
> > The source and binary packages are available for inspection at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucenenet/.
> >
> > There is a MyGet feed that can be accessed at:
> > V2: https://www.myget.org/F/lucene-net-nuget/api/v2 (VS2012+)
> > V3: https://www.myget.org/F/lucene-net-nuget/api/v3/index.json (VS2015+)
> >
> > The tag is:
> https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/releases/tag/Lucene.Net_4_8_0_beta00001
> >
> >
> > Please review the beta and vote.
> > This vote will close no sooner than 72 hours from now, i.e. sometime
> after 00:00 UTC 9-May 2017
> >
> > +1 - lets rock
> > 0 - indifferent
> > -1 - Not ready, because...
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 12:41 AM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Release
> >
> > 3 is the only one I see that we should correct prior to beta. The other
> three are all fixable as we go through beta with the community.
> >
> > I don't think ChineseAnalyzer needs to be done in this beta either. We
> *should* release another beta with changes.txt, and the other fixes.
> ChineseAnalyzer can be included in the next beta as well as other issues
> seen by the community.
> >
> > I'd say fix 3, and I'll +1 a vote (72 hours). Between the 72hr period
> and and the fix, Itamar probably has his week, and unless he find's a huge
> issue, we can always address it in beta (sorry Itamar, I don't think we
> have to wait for your review).
> >
> > My $.02.
> >
> > ~P
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shad Storhaug [mailto:shad@shadstorhaug.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 10:17 AM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Release
> >
> > Okay, so it looks like we are back to square 1 then...
> >
> > Over the past few days I realized there are a few things that could use
> some tweaking before the release:
> >
> > 1. The CHANGES.txt has not been updated with the latest status.
> > 2. We have no way to make a strong-named build as per Itamar's blog post
> (http://code972.com/blog/2014/04/68-ditching-strong-naming-for-lucene-net
> ).
> > 3. It might be better to rename the Lucene.Net.Icu package to
> Lucene.Net.ICU (which, if done, is something that should be done now, not
> after the first beta). Note this is an "extra" package that doesn't exist
> in Java. Its purpose is to remove the icu.net dependency (that is a PITA
> and doesn't yet have official .NET Core support) from the more popular
> packages Lucene.Net.Analysis.Common and Lucene.Net.Highlighter.
> > 4. The Spatial4n.Core and (unreleased) Spatial4n.Core.NTS packages
> depend on .NET Standard 1.6.1, but Lucene.Net depends on .NET Standard
> 1.6.0. This causes a non-fatal dependency warning. But we need to update
> all 3 of the Spatial4n.Core, Spatial4n.Core.NTS, and Lucene.Net.Spatial to
> fix it.
> >
> > Of course, none of this is absolutely critical for the release. Opinions
> on whether we should hold up to address these issues (I know this isn't the
> "official" vote...just a question)?
> >
> > Itamar, I noticed you assigned yourself to the ChineseAnalyzer task. Is
> that something you want to complete before the first beta? Bear in mind
> that we will probably need to release fairly frequently at first as bug
> reports come in and are addressed.
> >
> > Also, you mentioned "over the next week or so" for the review. Not
> opposed to waiting for you to do your thing, but I am just trying to ensure
> we reserve all of the NuGet package IDs before any of the other ones are
> snagged. I suppose I could upload some dummy packages to ensure it doesn't
> happen again...
> >
> > The main purposes of the beta release on NuGet will be:
> >
> > 1. To get feedback and bug reports
> > 2. To make [more of] the public aware that we are now in beta 3. To
> recruit more help for completion/optimization/stabilization
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2017-05-05, Shad Storhaug wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It has been 72 hours since your reply, yet the packages are still at
> >>> the URL below and not at
> >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/lucenenet/.
> >>
> >> Ah, my fault. I just threw out a link and didn't explain the process,
> >> I'm sorry.
> >>
> >> tldr; you must actively call for a vote.
> >>
> >> Cutting a release is a bit more complex at the ASF than in many other
> >> places. It may look cumbersome but is so in order to legally protect
> >> those who create the release. A release that has been approved by the
> >> PMC is an act of the foundation, so anybody trying to drag you into
> >> court because of the releases content, would end up facing the ASF,
> >> not you.
> >>
> >> For all the glory see http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
> >> or just read along for the short version.
> >>
> >> That being said, we need to formally vote on the release and we need
> >> at least three PMC members to cast a +1 vote and more PMC members
> >> casting a
> >> +1 than -1s.
> >>
> >> The 72 hours start once the release manager has sent out the VOTE
> >> email, for an example see
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/952a831da7e32103ceade2a2f70d99
> >> f4e297861e0938fcfcf52955e1@1349569519@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
> >> for the last time we did that (about five years ago, oh my) and ends
> >> with the release manager tallying the vote
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/eda7e0173b247acd1dcac75dac11f1
> >> 3ca7d5bc3627bba80048a0574d@1349840288@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
> >>
> >> One of the more involved examples is
> >> http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Voting_On_Release -
> >> Commons also has a nice list of things to check for a releaae and an
> >> extra page of all the things that need to be done once the vote has
> >> passed.
> >>
> >> So you need to call for a vote here and 72 hours later you can publish
> >> the release (assuming we muster three +1s, which I'd expect). Given
> >> you are now a PMC member yourself you should have all the karma
> >> required to perform the next steps (or we can arrange to grant it to
> you).
> >>
> >> Stefan
> >>
> >> PS: the ASF doesn't care whether we call the release ALPHA, beta,
> >> preview or yellow. If the intended audience is the general public and
> >> not the folks subscribing to the dev list, it is a release that has to
> >> follow the process.
> >>
>

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