lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Svensson <si...@devhost.se>
Subject Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00005
Date Tue, 24 Oct 2017 04:11:07 GMT
Hi,

I can confirm that beta00005 builds correctly for me, and all the tests 
pass in net451, according to the generated TestResult.xml files in 
release/TestResults/net451. However, there are directories created under 
release/TestResults/netcoreapp[1.0|2.0], but there are no xml files with 
test results there. But powershell didn't crash when running the tests 
over the night, so I guess any errors wasn't _that_ fatal. ;)

// Simon

On 2017-10-21 13:59, Shad Storhaug wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> I'd appreciate it if you could attempt to build locally again with the new build, 4.8.0-beta00005.
There have been a lot of issues discovered and patched with the build on the CI server, so
I have a feeling this may work for you now. If not, it would be nice to know if there are
still issues to resolve.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Svensson [mailto:sisve@devhost.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 10:05 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Those 45 minutes is a build and lots of tests executing (net451), and it fails for tests
involving netcoreapp1.0.
> 
> It looks like I am running with "dotnet --version" 1.0.3. Executing the
> ".\build\dotnet-install.ps1 -Version 1.0.0-preview2-1-003177" does successfully change
"dotnet --version" to 1.0.0-preview2-1-003177. I need to do this _before_ calling ".\build.bat
-t" and the tests _starts_.
> 
> I am now running into issues with references to Microsoft.NETCore.App 1.0.1, but I believe
those are already fixed in a later commit by you, and part of the beta2 release. I'll focus
on that release from now on.
> Ref: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/commit/c2bf370f
> 
> See you in the beta 2 vote thread. ;)
> 
> // Simon
> 
> 
> On 2017-05-09 19:02, Shad Storhaug wrote:
>> Simon,
>>
>> You did the right thing by abstaining. I am still trying to pin down what is happening
here, as I am unable to reproduce it.
>>
>> You mentioned the build took 45 minutes for it to fail during testing. On a fast
machine, that probably means that the run of the .NET Core tests was successful, and the .NET
Framework tests failed since they run in that order. It is strange that it is unable to resolve
the paths halfway through the test run though (since we are using the nunit test runner for
those tests, I would expect the problem to be related to that), but the way the paths are
being resolved isn't exactly bullet-proof:
>>
>> pushd $base_directory
>> $testProjects = Get-ChildItem -Path "project.json" -Recurse | ? {
>> $_.Directory.Name.Contains(".Tests") } Popd
>>
>> If you are familiar with Powershell, could you work with the script to see (if and)
why the paths are not resolving? You can make the script run in a few seconds by temporarily
commenting everything inside of an Exec { } block.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon Svensson [mailto:sisve@devhost.se]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 2:40 PM
>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm positive to a release, but since someone recently linked the release process,
and I read it, I cannot give a vote since I am unable to comply with the requirements.
>>
>> I'm clearly missing something on my local machine, but I do not yet know what. I
installed the 4.5.1 Dev Pack you linked, but still same failures. I havn't looked into it
further due to time/competence constraints on my part.
>>
>> It's the "..., compile as provided, and test the result on their own platform." that
alludes me:
>>
>>> "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to
>>> download
>> all signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet all
requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all cryptographic signatures,
compile as provided, and test the result on their own platform."
>>
>> Source:
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval
>>
>> // Simon
>>
>> On 2017-05-09 03:17, Shad Storhaug wrote:
>>> It has now been 72 hours since this vote started. Here are the results:
>>>
>>> PMC votes:
>>>
>>> +1: (3)
>>> 0: (0)
>>> -1: (1)
>>>
>>> Non-PMC votes:
>>> +1: (7) (2 of them committers)
>>> 0: (0)
>>> -1: (0)
>>>
>>> We also heard from Simon Svensson about an issue running tests on the CLI, but
he did not vote. Technically, he was running the tests from the repository, not from the release
package. I did some investigation and on a clean system without .NET or Visual Studio installed
it fails to compile in that configuration. It looks like some of the references are using
reference assemblies, when I believe they should be using NuGet packages that download on
demand. So, for the time being having the .NET Framework 4.5.1 Developer Pack installed is
a prerequisite for building (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=40772).
>>>
>>> I have also confirmed that attempting to build/test with Powershell 2.0 does
not work. I am testing with 3.0 now (so far it is working), but suffice to say the newer the
Powershell version the better.
>>>
>>> As for testing, this can be done either with Visual Studio 2015:
>>> http://apache.markmail.org/search/?q=from%3A%22Shad+Storhaug%22#query:
>>> from%3A%22Shad%20Storhaug%22+page:1+mid:yhrjkuo7kcxougpz+state:result
>>> s
>>>
>>> Or, from the command line using this command:
>>>
>>> powershell -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -Command "Import-Module .\build\psake.psm1;
Invoke-Psake .\build\build.ps1 -Task Default,Test -Properties @{prepareForBuild='false';backup_files='false'}"
>>>
>>> We should add a switch to build.bat to make that command simpler (i.e. build
-t), but that is how you can run the tests this time around.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> So technically the vote passes. However, I will give it some more time in case
anyone else wants to weigh in on whether the issues we have are significant enough to reset
the release. Presscott, Stefan, Simon, WDYT?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Shad Storhaug
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 4:35 AM
>>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
>>>
>>> Itamar,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your valuable opinion, but I respectfully disagree.
>>>
>>> The main purpose of getting this into the wild is so we can turn the trickle
of bug reports and pull requests into a flood. We know there are bugs (there are still at
least a dozen flakey tests, some of them concurrency related). But it would take forever to
fix them if we had to patch them one at a time, cancel the release, fix the next one, cancel
the next release, and so on.
>>>
>>> As for users being discouraged, I can't imagine the situation being worse than
the 51 users a day downloading these packages:
>>>
>>> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Lucene.Net.Core/
>>> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Lucene.Net.Analysis.Common/
>>>
>>> Not only do the unsuspecting downloaders not realize that they are unofficial
packages, but they are versioned as full releases, despite being unstable. Anyone who adapts
that API is going to be disappointed with the amount of rework they need to do to use the
official one. Waiting another 72 hours means another 153 potentially discouraged users who
think they are using production-ready code, whereas releasing the beta immediately means those
who knowingly decide to push pre-release code into production may or may not be discouraged
by this bug. In all likelihood, the patch will be out before they are ready to release anyway.
>>>
>>> IMO, we should push this release forward so we can start collecting information
on what is broken, recruit some help to fix the bugs, and fully expect to have another release
in short order (with more than just this one patch in it). That's my 2 cents.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com
>>> [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
>>> On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 2:31 AM
>>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
>>>
>>> Shad, Connie and team - great work on this, happy to see us reaching this stage.
>>>
>>> I'm voting -1, reason is I think our first public beta should incorporate this
fix: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/205. This one is important, every real-world
use case would hit this issue one way or another (and I'm expecting our users to run multi-threaded),
and I wouldn't want to discourage them from trying future versions by running into this bug,
which I consider rather severe. Let's make this beta count, and waiting another 72 hours wouldn't
change much.
>>>
>>> I will be happy to support the efforts of preparing a fixed version and pushing
it towards another vote and release.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Itamar Syn-Hershko
>>> Freelance Developer & Consultant
>>> Elasticsearch Partner
>>> Microsoft MVP | Lucene.NET PMC
>>> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
>>> http://BigDataBoutique.co.il/
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Prescott Nasser
>>> <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lazaro, you can send an email to
>>>> dev-unsubscribe@lucenenet.apache.org
>>>> from your subscribed email to unsubscribe.
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Lazaro Fernandes Lima <lazaro.fl@gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 6:45:39 AM
>>>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
>>>>
>>>> unsubscribe, please
>>>>
>>>> 2017-05-08 10:40 GMT-03:00 John Duerden <duerdenjohnw@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Downloaded and ran beta on a site I support - worked fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure my vote counts but +1 here and thanks for all the work.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Duerden
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 May 2017 at 18:15, Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/952a831da7e32103ceade2a2f70
>>>>>>> d99
>>>>>>> f4e297861e0938fcfcf52955e1@1349569519@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.or
>>>>>>> g%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/eda7e0173b247acd1dcac75dac1
>>>>>>> 1f1
>>>>>>> 3ca7d5bc3627bba80048a0574d@1349840288@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.or
>>>>>>> g%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the more involved examples is
>>>>>>> http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Voting_On_Releas
>>>>>>> e - 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/lazaroflima
>>>> - Tornar o simples complicado é fácil, tornar o complicado simples é
>>>> criatividade, vontade e conhecimento! -
>>>>

-- 
// Simon Svensson

Mime
View raw message