lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shad Storhaug <>
Subject RE: Release
Date Fri, 05 May 2017 17:57:37 GMT

BTW - I ended up setting up a new MyGet Feed
The reason for this is because upon testing the versioning scheme with .NET Core, it was failing
to resolve dependencies. You can have a 4 segment version (, a pre-release version
(4.8.0-beta1), but not both ( So, the whole thing had to be reverted to a lower
version range than what is on If we put new packages
with lower version numbers on that feed, the dependent packages won't resolve correctly.

Going forward, I set up the build script to automatically switch from 4.8.0-beta00001 to
(by changing the env.VersionSuffix and build counter in TeamCity
so we can at least patch bugs post-release without the version getting out of sync with Lucene.

I am happy to give anyone that needs it ownership of the MyGet feed - but I was planning on
doing the ownership invites after creating all of the new NuGet packages so it can all be
done at the same time.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Itamar
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: Release

So what is the current status of the licensing issue you raised?

FYI I just started reviewing and going through all that has happened here in the last few
weeks/months, it all looks very good - thanks Shad and Connie for the hard work. I will PR
/ commit any items need correction in the next week or so.


Itamar Syn-Hershko
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Elasticsearch Partner
Microsoft MVP | Lucene.NET PMC | @synhershko <>

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <> 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 
> >
> 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 
> 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
> for the last time we did that (about five years ago, oh my) and ends 
> with the release manager tallying the vote
> One of the more involved examples is
> - 
> 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.
View raw message