lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00005
Date Tue, 24 Oct 2017 05:29:02 GMT
+1

Looks good, and nice progress. Thanks Shad!

--

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 Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Simon Svensson <sisve@devhost.se> wrote:

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