lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kornev <>
Subject RE: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
Date Sat, 06 May 2017 00:36:06 GMT
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.


Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Shad Storhaug<>
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 3:15 AM
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

The source and binary packages are available for inspection at:

There is a MyGet feed that can be accessed at:
V2: (VS2012+)
V3: (VS2015+)

The tag is:

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...

Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)

-----Original Message-----
From: Prescott Nasser []
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 12:41 AM
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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Shad Storhaug []
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 10:17 AM
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 (
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 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

Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)

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.

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