Hey All,  The artifacts are ready to roll, they can be found here: http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/ Please review them and vote (+1, 0, -1 with a reason). I'll leave this vote open for a while with the New Years, I'm actually out of town in a couple of hours. I will release this vote to general early next week if all goes well Thanks,~Prescott    

+1

~Prescott Nasser

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

650.208.4205

 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:30:04 -0800
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release
>
>
> Hey All,  The artifacts are ready to roll, they can be found here: http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/ Please review them and vote (+1, 0, -1 with a reason). I'll leave this vote open for a while with the New Years, I'm actually out of town in a couple of hours. I will release this vote to general early next week if all goes well Thanks,~Prescott    
     

On 2011-12-30, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Hey All, The artifacts are ready to roll, they can be found here:
> http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/

Unfortunately I probably won't be able to review them for another 24
hours.

Is
<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g-RC1/>
the corresponding tag?

Stefan

That is the tag - no rush on review; im still out of town myself.

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Stefan Bodewig
Sent: 1/1/2012 10:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release

On 2011-12-30, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Hey All, The artifacts are ready to roll, they can be found here:
> http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/

Unfortunately I probably won't be able to review them for another 24
hours.

Is
<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g-RC1/>
the corresponding tag?

Stefan

On 2012-01-02, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> On 2011-12-30, Prescott Nasser wrote:

>> Hey All, The artifacts are ready to roll, they can be found here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/

Signatures and checksums are good.  NOTICE, LICENSE and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
match my current understanding.

RAT is reasonably happy with the binary release.  The source release
lacks license headers for all Solution files as well as quite a few C#
source in the CJK and Chinese Analyzers.  I'll open a JIRA ticket for
this.  Too many missing licenses for a +1, sorry.

> Is
> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g-RC1/>
> the corresponding tag?

The tag contains additional bin and doc dirs as it used to but it now
also has lib and build/vs2008 dirs that are not in the source
distribution.  I assume lib is in the same area as bin (stuff we need to
build but don't want to distribute).  vs2008 is empty, is this the
reason it is not part of the distribution?

Stefan

I'll apply this patch shortly and re-cut - thanks for looking it over. vs2008 is not there because it's an empty folder and spot on for lib - we aren't distributing it ~P
 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 07:14:53 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release
>
> On 2012-01-02, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> > On 2011-12-30, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> >> Hey All, The artifacts are ready to roll, they can be found here:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/
>
> Signatures and checksums are good.  NOTICE, LICENSE and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
> match my current understanding.
>
> RAT is reasonably happy with the binary release.  The source release
> lacks license headers for all Solution files as well as quite a few C#
> source in the CJK and Chinese Analyzers.  I'll open a JIRA ticket for
> this.  Too many missing licenses for a +1, sorry.
>
> > Is
> > <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g-RC1/>
> > the corresponding tag?
>
> The tag contains additional bin and doc dirs as it used to but it now
> also has lib and build/vs2008 dirs that are not in the source
> distribution.  I assume lib is in the same area as bin (stuff we need to
> build but don't want to distribute).  vs2008 is empty, is this the
> reason it is not part of the distribution?
>
> Stefan
     

Alright, take 2. I've applied Stefan's patch and retagged the branch. I kept RC1 as it mostly stayed the same. http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g_RC1/ Please take a look and provide me your feedback. ~Prescott  
      

Hopefully everyone is having a great weekend. If anyone could spare a few moments to review the 2.9.4g release, I'd appreciate it. Thanks,~Prescott
 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:55:01 -0800
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
>
>
> Alright, take 2. I've applied Stefan's patch and retagged the branch. I kept RC1 as it mostly stayed the same. http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g_RC1/ Please take a look and provide me your feedback. ~Prescott  
>      
     

On 2012-01-13, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Alright, take 2. I've applied Stefan's patch and retagged the
> branch. I kept RC1 as it mostly stayed the
> same. http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g_RC1/
> Please take a look and provide me your feedback.

Signatures and hashes are good, License and NOTICE look fine, RAT seems
reasonably happy, tag and source tarball match as much as they should
(missing bin/lib/docs and the empty demo subdir of test).

I do feel uncomfortable with the idea that you wouldn't get 3 +1s
without me voting so I explicitly don't vote now but will be happy to
provide my IPMC member +1 once the vote has reached the required votes
from the community.

Stefan

What do you mean I wouldn't get three +1s? From the license devs? ( this group seems a bit dead atm) or do you mean from the general? If you mean general - why do you think we won't get 3 votes?

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Stefan Bodewig
Sent: 1/17/2012 9:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)

On 2012-01-13, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Alright, take 2. I've applied Stefan's patch and retagged the
> branch. I kept RC1 as it mostly stayed the
> same. http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g_RC1/
> Please take a look and provide me your feedback.

Signatures and hashes are good, License and NOTICE look fine, RAT seems
reasonably happy, tag and source tarball match as much as they should
(missing bin/lib/docs and the empty demo subdir of test).

I do feel uncomfortable with the idea that you wouldn't get 3 +1s
without me voting so I explicitly don't vote now but will be happy to
provide my IPMC member +1 once the vote has reached the required votes
from the community.

Stefan

That should read list devs..as in the license devs

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Prescott Nasser
Sent: 1/17/2012 9:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)

What do you mean I wouldn't get three +1s? From the license devs? ( this group seems a bit dead atm) or do you mean from the general? If you mean general - why do you think we won't get 3 votes?

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Stefan Bodewig
Sent: 1/17/2012 9:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)

On 2012-01-13, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Alright, take 2. I've applied Stefan's patch and retagged the
> branch. I kept RC1 as it mostly stayed the
> same. http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4g-incubating-RC1/
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4g_RC1/
> Please take a look and provide me your feedback.

Signatures and hashes are good, License and NOTICE look fine, RAT seems
reasonably happy, tag and source tarball match as much as they should
(missing bin/lib/docs and the empty demo subdir of test).

I do feel uncomfortable with the idea that you wouldn't get 3 +1s
without me voting so I explicitly don't vote now but will be happy to
provide my IPMC member +1 once the vote has reached the required votes
from the community.

Stefan

Hi Prescott,

First of all, I should have said "thank you".  Thank you for putting
together the release, thank you for dealing with my "formal"
requirements that some may consider nit-picking and thank you for being
persistent.

On 2012-01-18, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> What do you mean I wouldn't get three +1s? From the license devs? (
> this group seems a bit dead atm) or do you mean from the general?

I meant "this group".  A release should be backed by the developers of
the project and so far I doesn't look that way.  Maybe people have just
waited for me to perform the "legal checks" in order to avoid spending
time reviewing a release that has to be recalled for non-technical
reasons, I don't know.

As for general.  It sure would be nice if we could get all three mentors
to vote before informing the general list.  By the time you start the
vote on general, you'll have my +1 and we will get two more of them by
asking repeatedly, as usual.

Stefan

I can't speak for anyone else but I've been inordinately busy since before
the holidays. I'll take a look over the release tomorrow.

Thanks so much to Prescott and Stephan for keeping things moving along.

Thanks,
Troy
On Jan 18, 2012 12:33 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Prescott,
>
> First of all, I should have said "thank you".  Thank you for putting
> together the release, thank you for dealing with my "formal"
> requirements that some may consider nit-picking and thank you for being
> persistent.
>
> On 2012-01-18, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> > What do you mean I wouldn't get three +1s? From the license devs? (
> > this group seems a bit dead atm) or do you mean from the general?
>
> I meant "this group".  A release should be backed by the developers of
> the project and so far I doesn't look that way.  Maybe people have just
> waited for me to perform the "legal checks" in order to avoid spending
> time reviewing a release that has to be recalled for non-technical
> reasons, I don't know.
>
> As for general.  It sure would be nice if we could get all three mentors
> to vote before informing the general list.  By the time you start the
> vote on general, you'll have my +1 and we will get two more of them by
> asking repeatedly, as usual.
>
> Stefan
>

Not be a miser, but I'm abstaining till we get a checklist for releases
going.

I know that we need to check
svn-eof
readme
use rat - apache license in files (if there is a tutorial on how to use
that, I can take that over)
docs
tickets
some form release info (whats in the release)

and I'm sure I'm missing stuff.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I can't speak for anyone else but I've been inordinately busy since before
> the holidays. I'll take a look over the release tomorrow.
>
> Thanks so much to Prescott and Stephan for keeping things moving along.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
> On Jan 18, 2012 12:33 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Prescott,
> >
> > First of all, I should have said "thank you".  Thank you for putting
> > together the release, thank you for dealing with my "formal"
> > requirements that some may consider nit-picking and thank you for being
> > persistent.
> >
> > On 2012-01-18, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> >
> > > What do you mean I wouldn't get three +1s? From the license devs? (
> > > this group seems a bit dead atm) or do you mean from the general?
> >
> > I meant "this group".  A release should be backed by the developers of
> > the project and so far I doesn't look that way.  Maybe people have just
> > waited for me to perform the "legal checks" in order to avoid spending
> > time reviewing a release that has to be recalled for non-technical
> > reasons, I don't know.
> >
> > As for general.  It sure would be nice if we could get all three mentors
> > to vote before informing the general list.  By the time you start the
> > vote on general, you'll have my +1 and we will get two more of them by
> > asking repeatedly, as usual.
> >
> > Stefan
> >
>

On 2012-01-18, Michael Herndon wrote:

> Not be a miser, but I'm abstaining till we get a checklist for releases
> going.

You know I don't perform any checks beyond what is required by ASF rules
and policies, I don't even verify the DLLs in the binary release are
.NET asemblies at all.

> I know that we need to check
> svn-eof

Not really required.  It would be nice if the line-ends in svn were set
to native on text files but that is no release requirement.  The
source-bundle will have Windows lineends anyway (assuming the release is
built on Windows).

> readme

I didn't read it, but it sure should be sensible.

> use rat - apache license in files (if there is a tutorial on how to use
> that, I can take that over)

Nothing beyond http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ - I am a developer on
RAT so I certainly know how to work with it and I even patched RAT to
better deal with .NET projects when creating the patches for Lucene.

> docs
> tickets
> some form release info (whats in the release)

Yep.

> and I'm sure I'm missing stuff.

I check the hashes and signatures match the archives, the source
distribution matches the svn tag (running diff -rb), the LICENSE
contains all licenses of stuff in the distribution and the NOTICE
contains all required notices (but not more).

For projects where I'm doing more than the legal sign-off I do:

* build the source distribution and run all tests on it

* build a binary distribution from the source distribution and check
  whether the differences between mine and the one the RM created are
  reasonable (timestamps, mostly, but for Java the .class files may be
  different for different JDK's javacs)

* sometimes I try to run the tests against the artifacts of the binary
  release

Stefan

Sounds like these should be incorporated into a wiki page for the project
 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:37:58 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
>
> On 2012-01-18, Michael Herndon wrote:
>
> > Not be a miser, but I'm abstaining till we get a checklist for releases
> > going.
>
> You know I don't perform any checks beyond what is required by ASF rules
> and policies, I don't even verify the DLLs in the binary release are
> .NET asemblies at all.
>
> > I know that we need to check
> > svn-eof
>
> Not really required.  It would be nice if the line-ends in svn were set
> to native on text files but that is no release requirement.  The
> source-bundle will have Windows lineends anyway (assuming the release is
> built on Windows).
>
> > readme
>
> I didn't read it, but it sure should be sensible.
>
> > use rat - apache license in files (if there is a tutorial on how to use
> > that, I can take that over)
>
> Nothing beyond http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ - I am a developer on
> RAT so I certainly know how to work with it and I even patched RAT to
> better deal with .NET projects when creating the patches for Lucene.
>
> > docs
> > tickets
> > some form release info (whats in the release)
>
> Yep.
>
> > and I'm sure I'm missing stuff.
>
> I check the hashes and signatures match the archives, the source
> distribution matches the svn tag (running diff -rb), the LICENSE
> contains all licenses of stuff in the distribution and the NOTICE
> contains all required notices (but not more).
>
> For projects where I'm doing more than the legal sign-off I do:
>
> * build the source distribution and run all tests on it
>
> * build a binary distribution from the source distribution and check
>   whether the differences between mine and the one the RM created are
>   reasonable (timestamps, mostly, but for Java the .class files may be
>   different for different JDK's javacs)
>
> * sometimes I try to run the tests against the artifacts of the binary
>   release
>
> Stefan
     

+1 for this release, btw.

Regarding some of the things in the checklist, weren't we at some point
going to setup some form of CI server for lucene?  Sounds like some of this
stuff can be automated and possibly make life a little easier for everyone.

Thanks,
Christopher

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> Sounds like these should be incorporated into a wiki page for the project
>  > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:37:58 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1
> Release (take 2)
> >
> > On 2012-01-18, Michael Herndon wrote:
> >
> > > Not be a miser, but I'm abstaining till we get a checklist for releases
> > > going.
> >
> > You know I don't perform any checks beyond what is required by ASF rules
> > and policies, I don't even verify the DLLs in the binary release are
> > .NET asemblies at all.
> >
> > > I know that we need to check
> > > svn-eof
> >
> > Not really required.  It would be nice if the line-ends in svn were set
> > to native on text files but that is no release requirement.  The
> > source-bundle will have Windows lineends anyway (assuming the release is
> > built on Windows).
> >
> > > readme
> >
> > I didn't read it, but it sure should be sensible.
> >
> > > use rat - apache license in files (if there is a tutorial on how to use
> > > that, I can take that over)
> >
> > Nothing beyond http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ - I am a developer on
> > RAT so I certainly know how to work with it and I even patched RAT to
> > better deal with .NET projects when creating the patches for Lucene.
> >
> > > docs
> > > tickets
> > > some form release info (whats in the release)
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > and I'm sure I'm missing stuff.
> >
> > I check the hashes and signatures match the archives, the source
> > distribution matches the svn tag (running diff -rb), the LICENSE
> > contains all licenses of stuff in the distribution and the NOTICE
> > contains all required notices (but not more).
> >
> > For projects where I'm doing more than the legal sign-off I do:
> >
> > * build the source distribution and run all tests on it
> >
> > * build a binary distribution from the source distribution and check
> >   whether the differences between mine and the one the RM created are
> >   reasonable (timestamps, mostly, but for Java the .class files may be
> >   different for different JDK's javacs)
> >
> > * sometimes I try to run the tests against the artifacts of the binary
> >   release
> >
> > Stefan
>
>

On 2012-01-21, Christopher Currens wrote:

> Regarding some of the things in the checklist, weren't we at some point
> going to setup some form of CI server for lucene?  Sounds like some of this
> stuff can be automated and possibly make life a little easier for everyone.

Not if you keep working on several branches 8-)

Seriously, you want to check the actual source release builds, so a CI
build would only suffice if you verified the source tree matches a state
that has actually been built by the CI.  If it does then CI may be good
enough.

Stefan

On 2012-01-20, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Sounds like these should be incorporated into a wiki page for the project

True.  Any preference about which page?

Stefan

I've created a wiki page with the checklist: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Release+Checklist+and+steps+once+a+release+is+approved.

 

I've also called a vote in general for 2.9.4g.

 

~Prescott

 

      

@chris,  see  https://builds.apache.org/. There are jobs running. The
overall set ups are not finished. There are some of the issues of getting
the dependent software installed and working with infra on this and working
on some of the pains of running tests & coverage reports working correctly.

Since it takes an around an hour or more to run the full build with tests,
coverage, and docs, it can painful working on testing changes with the
build at times and easy to burn out on.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Christopher Currens <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1 for this release, btw.
>
> Regarding some of the things in the checklist, weren't we at some point
> going to setup some form of CI server for lucene?  Sounds like some of this
> stuff can be automated and possibly make life a little easier for everyone.
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > Sounds like these should be incorporated into a wiki page for the project
> >  > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:37:58 +0100
> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1
> > Release (take 2)
> > >
> > > On 2012-01-18, Michael Herndon wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not be a miser, but I'm abstaining till we get a checklist for
> releases
> > > > going.
> > >
> > > You know I don't perform any checks beyond what is required by ASF
> rules
> > > and policies, I don't even verify the DLLs in the binary release are
> > > .NET asemblies at all.
> > >
> > > > I know that we need to check
> > > > svn-eof
> > >
> > > Not really required.  It would be nice if the line-ends in svn were set
> > > to native on text files but that is no release requirement.  The
> > > source-bundle will have Windows lineends anyway (assuming the release
> is
> > > built on Windows).
> > >
> > > > readme
> > >
> > > I didn't read it, but it sure should be sensible.
> > >
> > > > use rat - apache license in files (if there is a tutorial on how to
> use
> > > > that, I can take that over)
> > >
> > > Nothing beyond http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ - I am a developer on
> > > RAT so I certainly know how to work with it and I even patched RAT to
> > > better deal with .NET projects when creating the patches for Lucene.
> > >
> > > > docs
> > > > tickets
> > > > some form release info (whats in the release)
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > > and I'm sure I'm missing stuff.
> > >
> > > I check the hashes and signatures match the archives, the source
> > > distribution matches the svn tag (running diff -rb), the LICENSE
> > > contains all licenses of stuff in the distribution and the NOTICE
> > > contains all required notices (but not more).
> > >
> > > For projects where I'm doing more than the legal sign-off I do:
> > >
> > > * build the source distribution and run all tests on it
> > >
> > > * build a binary distribution from the source distribution and check
> > >   whether the differences between mine and the one the RM created are
> > >   reasonable (timestamps, mostly, but for Java the .class files may be
> > >   different for different JDK's javacs)
> > >
> > > * sometimes I try to run the tests against the artifacts of the binary
> > >   release
> > >
> > > Stefan
> >
> >
>

@Prescott, Thank you for the page.  I should be get around to poking
through it in the next 24 hours or so.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> I've created a wiki page with the checklist:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Release+Checklist+and+steps+once+a+release+is+approved
> .
>
>
>
> I've also called a vote in general for 2.9.4g.
>
>
>
> ~Prescott
>
>
>
>

On 2012-01-23, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> I've created a wiki page with the checklist:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Release+Checklist+and+steps+once+a+release+is+approved.

Thanks, I've added the points from my list.

> I've also called a vote in general for 2.9.4g.

Personally I would have preferred it if you had waited until you got
three +1s from this list.  So far I've only seen Christopher's (and
imply yours even though you didn't vote explicitly ;-).

Once/if Michael gets around voting I'll throw in my +1 as well (on
general and here).

Stefan

My apologies for not waiting.

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Stefan Bodewig
Sent: 1/23/2012 9:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)

On 2012-01-23, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> I've created a wiki page with the checklist:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Release+Checklist+and+steps+once+a+release+is+approved.

Thanks, I've added the points from my list.

> I've also called a vote in general for 2.9.4g.

Personally I would have preferred it if you had waited until you got
three +1s from this list.  So far I've only seen Christopher's (and
imply yours even though you didn't vote explicitly ;-).

Once/if Michael gets around voting I'll throw in my +1 as well (on
general and here).

Stefan

Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn?

I'm setting up RAT on my local.  Are there any other tools that you or ASF
recommends in general to validate releases?

- Michael

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 2012-01-23, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> > I've created a wiki page with the checklist:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Release+Checklist+and+steps+once+a+release+is+approved
> .
>
> Thanks, I've added the points from my list.
>
> > I've also called a vote in general for 2.9.4g.
>
> Personally I would have preferred it if you had waited until you got
> three +1s from this list.  So far I've only seen Christopher's (and
> imply yours even though you didn't vote explicitly ;-).
>
> Once/if Michael gets around voting I'll throw in my +1 as well (on
> general and here).
>
> Stefan
>

On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon wrote:

> Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn?

Pretty much a long and boring manual process.  I did something like

find . -name \*.cs -print0 | xargs -0 -e svn ps svn:eol-style native

i.e. tried to set the eol-style property on all C# source files.  This
won't do anything if the property is set and tell you it has changed
something in "svn status" if it the property hasn't been set before.

svn will also fail if the file in question contains inconsistent line
ends, this is the case for the NUnit doc files and even some of
Lucene.NET sources.

Repeat for all other file extension that should map to text files.

> I'm setting up RAT on my local.  Are there any other tools that you or ASF
> recommends in general to validate releases?

I think Sebb has a bunch of scripts he uses, but never bothered to look
them up.  If so, they'd be inside the comitters svn repo.

For this release you don't even need to check line-feeds, the properties
have not been set on all files.  The patch I provided a while ago only
applied to trunk.  To me this is no reason to stop the release, in
particular since most files have Windows line-ends and Prescott built
the release on Windows so the files would be the same with and without
svn:eol-style anyway.

I intend to provide a new patch for the 3.0.3 branch once you have
decided which way to go.  Most likely there'll be files without license
headers in that branch as well.

Stefan

I was not able to download the binaries till this morning.  The wiki was
also having issues.

I ran rat on the the released source, that seems fine. did a compare on src
zip and the tag. it matches.

The only things I saw are nit picks.
in the ReadMe the link should point to its respective tag instead of RC3
for just 2_9_4
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/lib/should
be

when releasing the source in the future, we should either include a script
that pulls the lib for the developers who want to compile from source
inside a tag when the project is built using the solution. Or we should
invest into using something like nuget for dependencies so that the
dependencies are automatically fetched somehow and we can remove those from
svn/scm altogether.

the source currently violates the "don't make me think about it" principle.

I know we all dislike chms, but until we figure out a better way of posting
the generated msdn documentation online, we should include that in releases
as well.  The static website version generates a high number of static html
files and our current CMS requires that those files are pushed into SVN
which just is not feasible. Committing that all at once will choke infra's
setup (and if they hired ninjas to pay us a visit, I probably wouldn't
blame them) and doing partial commits is just borderline insanity.
Just waiting on the all the tests to finish running.
http://xkcd.com/303/
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon wrote:
>
> > Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn?
>
> Pretty much a long and boring manual process.  I did something like
>
> find . -name \*.cs -print0 | xargs -0 -e svn ps svn:eol-style native
>
> i.e. tried to set the eol-style property on all C# source files.  This
> won't do anything if the property is set and tell you it has changed
> something in "svn status" if it the property hasn't been set before.
>
> svn will also fail if the file in question contains inconsistent line
> ends, this is the case for the NUnit doc files and even some of
> Lucene.NET sources.
>
> Repeat for all other file extension that should map to text files.
>
> > I'm setting up RAT on my local.  Are there any other tools that you or
> ASF
> > recommends in general to validate releases?
>
> I think Sebb has a bunch of scripts he uses, but never bothered to look
> them up.  If so, they'd be inside the comitters svn repo.
>
> For this release you don't even need to check line-feeds, the properties
> have not been set on all files.  The patch I provided a while ago only
> applied to trunk.  To me this is no reason to stop the release, in
> particular since most files have Windows line-ends and Prescott built
> the release on Windows so the files would be the same with and without
> svn:eol-style anyway.
>
> I intend to provide a new patch for the 3.0.3 branch once you have
> decided which way to go.  Most likely there'll be files without license
> headers in that branch as well.
>
> Stefan
>

You know even making a small change to the website like updating the news takes like 30 minutes to run now because of all the files. Its absolutely ridiculous.

I got chided by the CMS group, yet when asked how do we put documentation online with the new system there were crickets.

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Michael Herndon
Sent: 1/25/2012 8:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)

I was not able to download the binaries till this morning.  The wiki was
also having issues.

I ran rat on the the released source, that seems fine. did a compare on src
zip and the tag. it matches.

The only things I saw are nit picks.
in the ReadMe the link should point to its respective tag instead of RC3
for just 2_9_4
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/lib/should
be

when releasing the source in the future, we should either include a script
that pulls the lib for the developers who want to compile from source
inside a tag when the project is built using the solution. Or we should
invest into using something like nuget for dependencies so that the
dependencies are automatically fetched somehow and we can remove those from
svn/scm altogether.

the source currently violates the "don't make me think about it" principle.

I know we all dislike chms, but until we figure out a better way of posting
the generated msdn documentation online, we should include that in releases
as well.  The static website version generates a high number of static html
files and our current CMS requires that those files are pushed into SVN
which just is not feasible. Committing that all at once will choke infra's
setup (and if they hired ninjas to pay us a visit, I probably wouldn't
blame them) and doing partial commits is just borderline insanity.
Just waiting on the all the tests to finish running.
http://xkcd.com/303/
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon wrote:
>
> > Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn?
>
> Pretty much a long and boring manual process.  I did something like
>
> find . -name \*.cs -print0 | xargs -0 -e svn ps svn:eol-style native
>
> i.e. tried to set the eol-style property on all C# source files.  This
> won't do anything if the property is set and tell you it has changed
> something in "svn status" if it the property hasn't been set before.
>
> svn will also fail if the file in question contains inconsistent line
> ends, this is the case for the NUnit doc files and even some of
> Lucene.NET sources.
>
> Repeat for all other file extension that should map to text files.
>
> > I'm setting up RAT on my local.  Are there any other tools that you or
> ASF
> > recommends in general to validate releases?
>
> I think Sebb has a bunch of scripts he uses, but never bothered to look
> them up.  If so, they'd be inside the comitters svn repo.
>
> For this release you don't even need to check line-feeds, the properties
> have not been set on all files.  The patch I provided a while ago only
> applied to trunk.  To me this is no reason to stop the release, in
> particular since most files have Windows line-ends and Prescott built
> the release on Windows so the files would be the same with and without
> svn:eol-style anyway.
>
> I intend to provide a new patch for the 3.0.3 branch once you have
> decided which way to go.  Most likely there'll be files without license
> headers in that branch as well.
>
> Stefan
>

verified tests pass and checksums match.

so +1
@P, I remember that thread.  Those guys stay busy though and devopt
mentality is different than a devs.

Our needs probably exceed what the svn CMS is meant for due to
documentation.  I am curious if infra allows for or would allow us to throw
up a static mono/asp.net mvc in the future just so that we could dog food
 the site with search using Lucene.Net and then have it index certain pages
or sites (wiki, tutorials, static site, docs).   We'll probably need to dig
out our CMS options again and weight against short term and long term
goals.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> You know even making a small change to the website like updating the news
> takes like 30 minutes to run now because of all the files. Its absolutely
> ridiculous.
>
> I got chided by the CMS group, yet when asked how do we put documentation
> online with the new system there were crickets.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Herndon
> Sent: 1/25/2012 8:26 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1
> Release (take 2)
>
> I was not able to download the binaries till this morning.  The wiki was
> also having issues.
>
> I ran rat on the the released source, that seems fine. did a compare on src
> zip and the tag. it matches.
>
> The only things I saw are nit picks.
> in the ReadMe the link should point to its respective tag instead of RC3
> for just 2_9_4
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/lib/should
> be
>
> when releasing the source in the future, we should either include a script
> that pulls the lib for the developers who want to compile from source
> inside a tag when the project is built using the solution. Or we should
> invest into using something like nuget for dependencies so that the
> dependencies are automatically fetched somehow and we can remove those from
> svn/scm altogether.
>
> the source currently violates the "don't make me think about it" principle.
>
>
>
> I know we all dislike chms, but until we figure out a better way of posting
> the generated msdn documentation online, we should include that in releases
> as well.  The static website version generates a high number of static html
> files and our current CMS requires that those files are pushed into SVN
> which just is not feasible. Committing that all at once will choke infra's
> setup (and if they hired ninjas to pay us a visit, I probably wouldn't
> blame them) and doing partial commits is just borderline insanity.
>
>
> Just waiting on the all the tests to finish running.
> http://xkcd.com/303/
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon wrote:
> >
> > > Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn?
> >
> > Pretty much a long and boring manual process.  I did something like
> >
> > find . -name \*.cs -print0 | xargs -0 -e svn ps svn:eol-style native
> >
> > i.e. tried to set the eol-style property on all C# source files.  This
> > won't do anything if the property is set and tell you it has changed
> > something in "svn status" if it the property hasn't been set before.
> >
> > svn will also fail if the file in question contains inconsistent line
> > ends, this is the case for the NUnit doc files and even some of
> > Lucene.NET sources.
> >
> > Repeat for all other file extension that should map to text files.
> >
> > > I'm setting up RAT on my local.  Are there any other tools that you or
> > ASF
> > > recommends in general to validate releases?
> >
> > I think Sebb has a bunch of scripts he uses, but never bothered to look
> > them up.  If so, they'd be inside the comitters svn repo.
> >
> > For this release you don't even need to check line-feeds, the properties
> > have not been set on all files.  The patch I provided a while ago only

Thanks for the +1, we need one more vote here, then Stefan will be comfortable giving us a plus one, which will give us two plus ones in general, and ill only have to beg for one more :)

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Michael Herndon
Sent: 1/25/2012 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)

verified tests pass and checksums match.

so +1
@P, I remember that thread.  Those guys stay busy though and devopt
mentality is different than a devs.

Our needs probably exceed what the svn CMS is meant for due to
documentation.  I am curious if infra allows for or would allow us to throw
up a static mono/asp.net mvc in the future just so that we could dog food
 the site with search using Lucene.Net and then have it index certain pages
or sites (wiki, tutorials, static site, docs).   We'll probably need to dig
out our CMS options again and weight against short term and long term
goals.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> You know even making a small change to the website like updating the news
> takes like 30 minutes to run now because of all the files. Its absolutely
> ridiculous.
>
> I got chided by the CMS group, yet when asked how do we put documentation
> online with the new system there were crickets.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Herndon
> Sent: 1/25/2012 8:26 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1
> Release (take 2)
>
> I was not able to download the binaries till this morning.  The wiki was
> also having issues.
>
> I ran rat on the the released source, that seems fine. did a compare on src
> zip and the tag. it matches.
>
> The only things I saw are nit picks.
> in the ReadMe the link should point to its respective tag instead of RC3
> for just 2_9_4
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/lib/should
> be
>
> when releasing the source in the future, we should either include a script
> that pulls the lib for the developers who want to compile from source
> inside a tag when the project is built using the solution. Or we should
> invest into using something like nuget for dependencies so that the
> dependencies are automatically fetched somehow and we can remove those from
> svn/scm altogether.
>
> the source currently violates the "don't make me think about it" principle.
>
>
>
> I know we all dislike chms, but until we figure out a better way of posting
> the generated msdn documentation online, we should include that in releases
> as well.  The static website version generates a high number of static html
> files and our current CMS requires that those files are pushed into SVN
> which just is not feasible. Committing that all at once will choke infra's
> setup (and if they hired ninjas to pay us a visit, I probably wouldn't
> blame them) and doing partial commits is just borderline insanity.
>
>
> Just waiting on the all the tests to finish running.
> http://xkcd.com/303/
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon wrote:
> >
> > > Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn?
> >
> > Pretty much a long and boring manual process.  I did something like
> >
> > find . -name \*.cs -print0 | xargs -0 -e svn ps svn:eol-style native
> >
> > i.e. tried to set the eol-style property on all C# source files.  This
> > won't do anything if the property is set and tell you it has changed
> > something in "svn status" if it the property hasn't been set before.
> >
> > svn will also fail if the file in question contains inconsistent line
> > ends, this is the case for the NUnit doc files and even some of
> > Lucene.NET sources.

+1
DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)

Thanks for the +1, we need one more vote here, then Stefan will be comfortable giving us a plus one, which will give us two plus ones in general, and ill only have to beg for one more :)

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Michael Herndon
Sent: 1/25/2012 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)

verified tests pass and checksums match.

so +1
@P, I remember that thread.  Those guys stay busy though and devopt
mentality is different than a devs.

Our needs probably exceed what the svn CMS is meant for due to
documentation.  I am curious if infra allows for or would allow us to throw
up a static mono/asp.net mvc in the future just so that we could dog food
 the site with search using Lucene.Net and then have it index certain pages
or sites (wiki, tutorials, static site, docs).   We'll probably need to dig
out our CMS options again and weight against short term and long term
goals.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> You know even making a small change to the website like updating the news
> takes like 30 minutes to run now because of all the files. Its absolutely
> ridiculous.
>
> I got chided by the CMS group, yet when asked how do we put documentation
> online with the new system there were crickets.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Herndon
> Sent: 1/25/2012 8:26 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1
> Release (take 2)
>
> I was not able to download the binaries till this morning.  The wiki was
> also having issues.
>
> I ran rat on the the released source, that seems fine. did a compare on src
> zip and the tag. it matches.
>
> The only things I saw are nit picks.
> in the ReadMe the link should point to its respective tag instead of RC3
> for just 2_9_4
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/lib/should
> be
>
> when releasing the source in the future, we should either include a script
> that pulls the lib for the developers who want to compile from source
> inside a tag when the project is built using the solution. Or we should
> invest into using something like nuget for dependencies so that the
> dependencies are automatically fetched somehow and we can remove those from
> svn/scm altogether.
>
> the source currently violates the "don't make me think about it" principle.
>
>
>
> I know we all dislike chms, but until we figure out a better way of posting
> the generated msdn documentation online, we should include that in releases
> as well.  The static website version generates a high number of static html
> files and our current CMS requires that those files are pushed into SVN
> which just is not feasible. Committing that all at once will choke infra's
> setup (and if they hired ninjas to pay us a visit, I probably wouldn't
> blame them) and doing partial commits is just borderline insanity.
>
>
> Just waiting on the all the tests to finish running.
> http://xkcd.com/303/
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon wrote:
> >
> > > Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn?
> >
> > Pretty much a long and boring manual process.  I did something like
> >
> > find . -name \*.cs -print0 | xargs -0 -e svn ps svn:eol-style native
> >
> > i.e. tried to set the eol-style property on all C# source files.  This
> > won't do anything if the property is set and tell you it has changed
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4765 - Release Date: 01/25/12

+1

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
>
> Thanks for the +1, we need one more vote here, then Stefan will be comfortable giving us a plus one, which will give us two plus ones in general, and ill only have to beg for one more :)
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Herndon
> Sent: 1/25/2012 11:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
>
> verified tests pass and checksums match.
>
> so +1
>
>
> @P, I remember that thread.  Those guys stay busy though and devopt
> mentality is different than a devs.
>
> Our needs probably exceed what the svn CMS is meant for due to
> documentation.  I am curious if infra allows for or would allow us to throw
> up a static mono/asp.net mvc in the future just so that we could dog food
>  the site with search using Lucene.Net and then have it index certain pages
> or sites (wiki, tutorials, static site, docs).   We'll probably need to dig
> out our CMS options again and weight against short term and long term
> goals.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> You know even making a small change to the website like updating the news
>> takes like 30 minutes to run now because of all the files. Its absolutely
>> ridiculous.
>>
>> I got chided by the CMS group, yet when asked how do we put documentation
>> online with the new system there were crickets.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> ________________________________
>> From: Michael Herndon
>> Sent: 1/25/2012 8:26 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1
>> Release (take 2)
>>
>> I was not able to download the binaries till this morning.  The wiki was
>> also having issues.
>>
>> I ran rat on the the released source, that seems fine. did a compare on src
>> zip and the tag. it matches.
>>
>> The only things I saw are nit picks.
>> in the ReadMe the link should point to its respective tag instead of RC3
>> for just 2_9_4
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/lib/should
>> be
>>
>> when releasing the source in the future, we should either include a script
>> that pulls the lib for the developers who want to compile from source
>> inside a tag when the project is built using the solution. Or we should
>> invest into using something like nuget for dependencies so that the
>> dependencies are automatically fetched somehow and we can remove those from
>> svn/scm altogether.
>>
>> the source currently violates the "don't make me think about it" principle.
>>
>>
>>
>> I know we all dislike chms, but until we figure out a better way of posting
>> the generated msdn documentation online, we should include that in releases
>> as well.  The static website version generates a high number of static html
>> files and our current CMS requires that those files are pushed into SVN
>> which just is not feasible. Committing that all at once will choke infra's
>> setup (and if they hired ninjas to pay us a visit, I probably wouldn't
>> blame them) and doing partial commits is just borderline insanity.
>>
>>
>> Just waiting on the all the tests to finish running.
>> http://xkcd.com/303/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon wrote:
>> >
>> > > Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn?
>> >
>> > Pretty much a long and boring manual process.  I did something like

Ha - you guys rock

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Troy Howard
Sent: 1/25/2012 4:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)

+1

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
>
> Thanks for the +1, we need one more vote here, then Stefan will be comfortable giving us a plus one, which will give us two plus ones in general, and ill only have to beg for one more :)
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Herndon
> Sent: 1/25/2012 11:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
>
> verified tests pass and checksums match.
>
> so +1
>
>
> @P, I remember that thread.  Those guys stay busy though and devopt
> mentality is different than a devs.
>
> Our needs probably exceed what the svn CMS is meant for due to
> documentation.  I am curious if infra allows for or would allow us to throw
> up a static mono/asp.net mvc in the future just so that we could dog food
>  the site with search using Lucene.Net and then have it index certain pages
> or sites (wiki, tutorials, static site, docs).   We'll probably need to dig
> out our CMS options again and weight against short term and long term
> goals.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> You know even making a small change to the website like updating the news
>> takes like 30 minutes to run now because of all the files. Its absolutely
>> ridiculous.
>>
>> I got chided by the CMS group, yet when asked how do we put documentation
>> online with the new system there were crickets.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> ________________________________
>> From: Michael Herndon
>> Sent: 1/25/2012 8:26 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1
>> Release (take 2)
>>
>> I was not able to download the binaries till this morning.  The wiki was
>> also having issues.
>>
>> I ran rat on the the released source, that seems fine. did a compare on src
>> zip and the tag. it matches.
>>
>> The only things I saw are nit picks.
>> in the ReadMe the link should point to its respective tag instead of RC3
>> for just 2_9_4
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/lib/should
>> be
>>
>> when releasing the source in the future, we should either include a script
>> that pulls the lib for the developers who want to compile from source
>> inside a tag when the project is built using the solution. Or we should
>> invest into using something like nuget for dependencies so that the
>> dependencies are automatically fetched somehow and we can remove those from
>> svn/scm altogether.
>>
>> the source currently violates the "don't make me think about it" principle.
>>
>>
>>
>> I know we all dislike chms, but until we figure out a better way of posting
>> the generated msdn documentation online, we should include that in releases
>> as well.  The static website version generates a high number of static html
>> files and our current CMS requires that those files are pushed into SVN
>> which just is not feasible. Committing that all at once will choke infra's
>> setup (and if they hired ninjas to pay us a visit, I probably wouldn't
>> blame them) and doing partial commits is just borderline insanity.
>>
>>
>> Just waiting on the all the tests to finish running.
>> http://xkcd.com/303/
>>
>>

LOL... We just wanted to see you grovel a little bit. ;)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ha - you guys rock
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Troy Howard
> Sent: 1/25/2012 4:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
>
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1
>> DIGY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:56 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
>>
>> Thanks for the +1, we need one more vote here, then Stefan will be comfortable giving us a plus one, which will give us two plus ones in general, and ill only have to beg for one more :)
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> ________________________________
>> From: Michael Herndon
>> Sent: 1/25/2012 11:15 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1 Release (take 2)
>>
>> verified tests pass and checksums match.
>>
>> so +1
>>
>>
>> @P, I remember that thread.  Those guys stay busy though and devopt
>> mentality is different than a devs.
>>
>> Our needs probably exceed what the svn CMS is meant for due to
>> documentation.  I am curious if infra allows for or would allow us to throw
>> up a static mono/asp.net mvc in the future just so that we could dog food
>>  the site with search using Lucene.Net and then have it index certain pages
>> or sites (wiki, tutorials, static site, docs).   We'll probably need to dig
>> out our CMS options again and weight against short term and long term
>> goals.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> You know even making a small change to the website like updating the news
>>> takes like 30 minutes to run now because of all the files. Its absolutely
>>> ridiculous.
>>>
>>> I got chided by the CMS group, yet when asked how do we put documentation
>>> online with the new system there were crickets.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Michael Herndon
>>> Sent: 1/25/2012 8:26 AM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene-2.9.4g-incubating-RC1
>>> Release (take 2)
>>>
>>> I was not able to download the binaries till this morning.  The wiki was
>>> also having issues.
>>>
>>> I ran rat on the the released source, that seems fine. did a compare on src
>>> zip and the tag. it matches.
>>>
>>> The only things I saw are nit picks.
>>> in the ReadMe the link should point to its respective tag instead of RC3
>>> for just 2_9_4
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/Lucene.Net_2_9_4_RC3/lib/should
>>> be
>>>
>>> when releasing the source in the future, we should either include a script
>>> that pulls the lib for the developers who want to compile from source
>>> inside a tag when the project is built using the solution. Or we should
>>> invest into using something like nuget for dependencies so that the
>>> dependencies are automatically fetched somehow and we can remove those from
>>> svn/scm altogether.
>>>
>>> the source currently violates the "don't make me think about it" principle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I know we all dislike chms, but until we figure out a better way of posting
>>> the generated msdn documentation online, we should include that in releases
>>> as well.  The static website version generates a high number of static html
>>> files and our current CMS requires that those files are pushed into SVN
>>> which just is not feasible. Committing that all at once will choke infra's

On 2012-01-26, Troy Howard wrote:

> +1

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1
>> DIGY

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

>>> Thanks for the +1, we need one more vote here, then Stefan will be
>>> comfortable giving us a plus one, which will give us two plus ones
>>> in general, and ill only have to beg for one more :)

By my count we've been at three +1s with Michael's vote but the more the
better.  Many thanks guys.

+1 on the release

   Stefan