Artifacts are located here: http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
If the vote passes here, I will move the artifacts to staging and call a vote on the general incubator mailing list

 

Please verify the release and cast your vote.  The vote will be open for 72 hours.

[ ] +1
[ ]  0
[ ] -1

 

 

~Prescott    

+1
----------------------------------------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:08:32 -0700
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
>
>
> Artifacts are located here: http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
>
>
> If the vote passes here, I will move the artifacts to staging and call a vote on the general incubator mailing list
>
>
>
> Please verify the release and cast your vote. The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] 0
> [ ] -1
>
>
>
>
>
> ~Prescott    

On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Artifacts are located here:
> http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/

Is there a tag in svn that is supposed to correspond to them?  My guess
is <http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/>.
But then I find

diff -ur svn/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs Apache-Lucene.Net-2.
9.4-incubating-RC1.src/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs
--- svn/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs  2011-04-23 01:53:05.3476
64000 +0200
+++ Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC1.src/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/Mo
reLikeThis.cs   2011-10-30 19:35:42.000000000 +0100
@@ -769,7 +769,7 @@
                     {
                         for (int j = 0; j < text.Length; j++)
                         {
-                            AddTermFrequencies(new System.IO.StreamReader(text[
j]), termFreqMap, fieldName);
+                            AddTermFrequencies(new System.IO.StringReader(text[
j]), termFreqMap, fieldName);
                         }
                     }
                 }
@@ -820,7 +820,7 @@
         /// </param>
         /// <param name="fieldName">Used by analyzer for any special per-field
analysis
         /// </param>
-        private void  AddTermFrequencies(System.IO.StreamReader r, System.Collections.IDictionary termFreqMap, System.String fieldName)
+        private void  AddTermFrequencies(System.IO.TextReader r, System.Collections.IDictionary termFreqMap, System.String fieldName)
         {
             TokenStream ts = analyzer.TokenStream(fieldName, r);
             Lucene.Net.Analysis.Token token;

so they don't match.

The src ZIP doesn't contain build.cmd nor the doc and lib folders.  Is
this intentional?

Signatures and checksums match.

The src ZIP contains .svn folders which I don't think they should.  No
biggie just something to fix for the next release or RC.  Same for some
.suo files and obj folders.

The binary distribution needs LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt that I can't
seem to find.  This forces a -1 from me.

The only other test I'd perform was running RAT which I'll do shortly
and post the results here.

Stefan

bleh - forgot to update the branch.

 

And yay for windows hiding those svn files..

 

I'll give it a day or so and see what others might say then update it and call a new vote.

 

Thanks for taking the time to review

 

~P

----------------------------------------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:00:08 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
>
> On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> > Artifacts are located here:
> > http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
>
> Is there a tag in svn that is supposed to correspond to them? My guess
> is <http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/>.
> But then I find
>
> diff -ur svn/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs Apache-Lucene.Net-2.
> 9.4-incubating-RC1.src/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs
> --- svn/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs 2011-04-23 01:53:05.3476
> 64000 +0200
> +++ Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC1.src/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/Mo
> reLikeThis.cs 2011-10-30 19:35:42.000000000 +0100
> @@ -769,7 +769,7 @@
> {
> for (int j = 0; j < text.Length; j++)
> {
> - AddTermFrequencies(new System.IO.StreamReader(text[
> j]), termFreqMap, fieldName);
> + AddTermFrequencies(new System.IO.StringReader(text[
> j]), termFreqMap, fieldName);
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -820,7 +820,7 @@
> /// </param>
> /// <param name="fieldName">Used by analyzer for any special per-field
> analysis
> /// </param>
> - private void AddTermFrequencies(System.IO.StreamReader r, System.Collections.IDictionary termFreqMap, System.String fieldName)
> + private void AddTermFrequencies(System.IO.TextReader r, System.Collections.IDictionary termFreqMap, System.String fieldName)
> {
> TokenStream ts = analyzer.TokenStream(fieldName, r);
> Lucene.Net.Analysis.Token token;
>
> so they don't match.
>
> The src ZIP doesn't contain build.cmd nor the doc and lib folders. Is
> this intentional?
>
> Signatures and checksums match.
>
> The src ZIP contains .svn folders which I don't think they should. No
> biggie just something to fix for the next release or RC. Same for some
> .suo files and obj folders.
>
> The binary distribution needs LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt that I can't
> seem to find. This forces a -1 from me.
>
> The only other test I'd perform was running RAT which I'll do shortly
> and post the results here.
>
> Stefan    

On 2011-10-31, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> The only other test I'd perform was running RAT which I'll do shortly
> and post the results here.

The binary look good, but

<http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/lucene.net/src.rat.txt>

Way too many files without license headers.  I can and will provide a
patch to trunk fixing issues there (my svn trunk version of RAT is
better suited to do that than the latest release) but I recall this RC
was created from a branch so it may be of more help if I created the
patch for that one.

Stefan

I have to re tag the trunk because of the additional bug fix I put in this evening. So feel free to update the trunk, I'll re tag it 2.9.4 RC2 once that's ready

 

~Prescott

----------------------------------------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:10:46 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
>
> On 2011-10-31, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> > The only other test I'd perform was running RAT which I'll do shortly
> > and post the results here.
>
> The binary look good, but
>
> <http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/lucene.net/src.rat.txt>
>
> Way too many files without license headers. I can and will provide a
> patch to trunk fixing issues there (my svn trunk version of RAT is
> better suited to do that than the latest release) but I recall this RC
> was created from a branch so it may be of more help if I created the
> patch for that one.
>
> Stefan    

On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> I have to re tag the trunk because of the additional bug fix I put in
> this evening. So feel free to update the trunk

LUCENENET-451

Technically I could commit it myself but it may be better if anybody
from "the real team" did.

Stefan

If no one else beats me to it, I can probably have it in trunk by wednesday.

- Michael

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> > I have to re tag the trunk because of the additional bug fix I put in
> > this evening. So feel free to update the trunk
>
> LUCENENET-451
>
> Technically I could commit it myself but it may be better if anybody
> from "the real team" did.
>
> Stefan
>

Michael - how do we stand with the sandcastle documentation generation?. I'm not familiar with using it, but we basically have no real documentation for this. It would be great to be able to generate documentation that we can then bundle with 2.9.4.
Stefan - doc folder was left out intentionally for this reason. Also the Lib folder, I left out, I thought it was additional dll's that weren't part of Lucene that others might need. I can put that back in. Not even sure what the build.cmd file is, but I'll investigate and get it in there.

 

 
----------------------------------------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:00:08 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
>
> On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> > Artifacts are located here:
> > http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
>
> Is there a tag in svn that is supposed to correspond to them? My guess
> is <http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/>.
> But then I find
>
> diff -ur svn/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs Apache-Lucene.Net-2.
> 9.4-incubating-RC1.src/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs
> --- svn/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs 2011-04-23 01:53:05.3476
> 64000 +0200
> +++ Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC1.src/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/Mo
> reLikeThis.cs 2011-10-30 19:35:42.000000000 +0100
> @@ -769,7 +769,7 @@
> {
> for (int j = 0; j < text.Length; j++)
> {
> - AddTermFrequencies(new System.IO.StreamReader(text[
> j]), termFreqMap, fieldName);
> + AddTermFrequencies(new System.IO.StringReader(text[
> j]), termFreqMap, fieldName);
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -820,7 +820,7 @@
> /// </param>
> /// <param name="fieldName">Used by analyzer for any special per-field
> analysis
> /// </param>
> - private void AddTermFrequencies(System.IO.StreamReader r, System.Collections.IDictionary termFreqMap, System.String fieldName)
> + private void AddTermFrequencies(System.IO.TextReader r, System.Collections.IDictionary termFreqMap, System.String fieldName)
> {
> TokenStream ts = analyzer.TokenStream(fieldName, r);
> Lucene.Net.Analysis.Token token;
>
> so they don't match.
>
> The src ZIP doesn't contain build.cmd nor the doc and lib folders. Is
> this intentional?
>
> Signatures and checksums match.
>
> The src ZIP contains .svn folders which I don't think they should. No
> biggie just something to fix for the next release or RC. Same for some
> .suo files and obj folders.
>
> The binary distribution needs LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt that I can't
> seem to find. This forces a -1 from me.
>
> The only other test I'd perform was running RAT which I'll do shortly
> and post the results here.
>
> Stefan    

On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Stefan - doc folder was left out intentionally for this reason.

OK.  I wonder whether it should be moved out of trunk.

> Also the Lib folder, I left out, I thought it was additional dll's
> that weren't part of Lucene that others might need. I can put that
> back in.

Please don't.  We'd need to review whether we can re-distribute all
those DLLs complying with ASF policies anyway.

Stefan

@Prescott,

In name of getting this out the door and keeping momentum I'll put those
together and push that into svn sometime late tonight. **

Other things to do once released....  official nuget package, some website
love. and start using the twitter: LuceneDotNet account.  I can help with
these as well.

@all,

If everyone involved for this release could put some time aside after this
release to co-write a checklist/steps to put on the wiki for the release
process in one place, that would be awesome.
**reasoning.....
We've yet to get the SHFB installed on builds and thus I need to write up
some instructions for the installer as it been causing some pain for CI.
Once that hurdle is crossed, I'd like to work with a few people
contributors or committers to make sure others can create docs.  But for
now, there is no point in obstructing the release with that. We've made an
hard line effort at all things outstanding in the last few months and we
should keep with the momentum of getting this out the door.
- Michael

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> Michael - how do we stand with the sandcastle documentation generation?.
> I'm not familiar with using it, but we basically have no real documentation
> for this. It would be great to be able to generate documentation that we
> can then bundle with 2.9.4.
>
>
> Stefan - doc folder was left out intentionally for this reason. Also the
> Lib folder, I left out, I thought it was additional dll's that weren't part
> of Lucene that others might need. I can put that back in. Not even sure
> what the build.cmd file is, but I'll investigate and get it in there.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:00:08 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
> >
> > On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> >
> > > Artifacts are located here:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
> >
> > Is there a tag in svn that is supposed to correspond to them? My guess
> > is <http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/>.
> > But then I find
> >
> > diff -ur svn/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs
> Apache-Lucene.Net-2.
> > 9.4-incubating-RC1.src/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs
> > --- svn/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs 2011-04-23
> 01:53:05.3476
> > 64000 +0200
> > +++
> Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC1.src/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/Mo
> > reLikeThis.cs 2011-10-30 19:35:42.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -769,7 +769,7 @@
> > {
> > for (int j = 0; j < text.Length; j++)
> > {
> > - AddTermFrequencies(new System.IO.StreamReader(text[
> > j]), termFreqMap, fieldName);
> > + AddTermFrequencies(new System.IO.StringReader(text[
> > j]), termFreqMap, fieldName);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -820,7 +820,7 @@
> > /// </param>
> > /// <param name="fieldName">Used by analyzer for any special per-field
> > analysis
> > /// </param>
> > - private void AddTermFrequencies(System.IO.StreamReader r,
> System.Collections.IDictionary termFreqMap, System.String fieldName)
> > + private void AddTermFrequencies(System.IO.TextReader r,
> System.Collections.IDictionary termFreqMap, System.String fieldName)
> > {
> > TokenStream ts = analyzer.TokenStream(fieldName, r);
> > Lucene.Net.Analysis.Token token;
> >
> > so they don't match.
> >
> > The src ZIP doesn't contain build.cmd nor the doc and lib folders. Is
> > this intentional?
> >
> > Signatures and checksums match.
> >
> > The src ZIP contains .svn folders which I don't think they should. No
> > biggie just something to fix for the next release or RC. Same for some
> > .suo files and obj folders.
> >
> > The binary distribution needs LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt that I can't
> > seem to find. This forces a -1 from me.
> >
> > The only other test I'd perform was running RAT which I'll do shortly

Prescott,

Good job figuring out the signing and creating the release packages!
It's non-trivial to figure out the first time from the docs, for sure.
Sorry, I have been so busy this month that I wasn't able to provide
help before you figured it out on your own. :)

Some nitpicky details about the release packages:

- Superfluous subfolders: There's an extra layer of subfolders named
the same as the zip file which is unneeded
- Root should be "trunk" all the time, even in the release packages,
to keep relative pathing consistently rooted. So the binary release
should have a "bin" subfolder at it's root to match the repo layout
- XML doc files should be included in binary release. We have had
users state a desire to have them for VS intellisense integration.
This was an issue that came up during the last release package build
cycle
- Various notice files should be included in binary release as well
- I don't know about the.SNK file from lib, maybe that should be in
the source package, maybe not. I notice it's also in the core project
folder. Which one does the project file reference?
- .svn folder/files should be removed from source package
- Empty subfolders should be left out (\build\vs2008 and \test\demo
are the ones I noticed)
- \docs are missing from source package as well

Regarding docs, generally speaking, I think we should make a decision
about what we want to provide and set a standard.

Some considerations are:
- XML doc files in binary package: Integrate with Visual Studio,
providing a rich Intellisense experience, Generated at build time from
source code. Where should they go in the folder structure to make it
"just work" with VS from binary package?
- Hosted HTML "Single Version of the Truth" vs HTML/CHM doc files in
binary/source package: One one hand, we could only host docs on the
website vs distributing them. We can update as needed, and they are
the only reference. Can host docs for multiple versions, etc..
HTML/CHM in packages, are good for offline use, but can't be updated.
Both can be generated from XML files using Sandcastle. We could do
either one, or both of those.

Using sandcastle, we can include the Apache license in the headers of
all generated files, solving a lot of the RAT complaints.

Also, there's a lot of new material in the repo for CI related
things.. Do we want to include any of the in the source package, to
assist our users with setting up their own CI servers? How simple
would it be to modify those files to work in a different environment
(assuming they are also using Hudkins)?

So all that said, I think there's more work to be done and I'm -1 for
these artifacts.

Thanks,
Troy
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Artifacts are located here: http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
>
>
> If the vote passes here, I will move the artifacts to staging and call a vote on the general incubator mailing list
>
>
>
> Please verify the release and cast your vote.  The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ]  0
> [ ] -1
>
>
>
>
>
> ~Prescott

@Troy,

Now I don't feel as bad for my long e-mails. ;)

-build scripts

Except for building on mono or running NCover, the scripts work as
intended. Also end users would need to install the required tools they
intend to run with the build scripts. The scripts can be included, but it
would be wise to include those caveats in a read-me somewhere.

And there are ways to override the build scripts for user/custom build
configurations.  For those interested, post questions on a new thread.

When you run the build scripts they should be including the xml files in
the trunk/bin folder on successful builds. Please do let me know if that
was not the case on your local machine if you used the scripts to build the
binaries.

-.snk
The .snk in the lib folder is the original.  When you create a new csproj,
that is the file you use sign the binary with a strong key. The project
defaults to creating a copy of the .snk file in its own folder.  I can't
remember if there is a way to just link it to only one file or not, but
that was the default behavior.

So to answer your question, if users/developers to create their own contrib
projects or their own ci based upon a stable release tag and plan to use
the same .snk, then it would be wise to include all of lib.  If they are
just building from a stable branch, you can exclude the .snk file as each
project that uses it will have its own copy.

- docs
Generating both chm/html at the moment.  I'll push the html version into
source tonight for the website. and push a zip file with both the chm &
static html site into a jira ticket.  The chm is handy when you're in
facility that is locked down and need to move around good deal of help
files on a thumb drive.

The xml files should be included. The xml files are only generated when you
currently build a binary in Release mode for trunk & 2.9.4g branch. So if
you build the binaries and the xml files are not there, that is the most
likely cause.

Unless someone picks up the task of improving the overall xml doc comments
between versions and generating them, most likely the documents will only
be updated between releases.

- Michael

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Prescott,
>
> Good job figuring out the signing and creating the release packages!
> It's non-trivial to figure out the first time from the docs, for sure.
> Sorry, I have been so busy this month that I wasn't able to provide
> help before you figured it out on your own. :)
>
> Some nitpicky details about the release packages:
>
> - Superfluous subfolders: There's an extra layer of subfolders named
> the same as the zip file which is unneeded
> - Root should be "trunk" all the time, even in the release packages,
> to keep relative pathing consistently rooted. So the binary release
> should have a "bin" subfolder at it's root to match the repo layout
> - XML doc files should be included in binary release. We have had
> users state a desire to have them for VS intellisense integration.
> This was an issue that came up during the last release package build
> cycle
> - Various notice files should be included in binary release as well
> - I don't know about the.SNK file from lib, maybe that should be in
> the source package, maybe not. I notice it's also in the core project
> folder. Which one does the project file reference?
> - .svn folder/files should be removed from source package
> - Empty subfolders should be left out (\build\vs2008 and \test\demo
> are the ones I noticed)
> - \docs are missing from source package as well
>
> Regarding docs, generally speaking, I think we should make a decision
> about what we want to provide and set a standard.
>
> Some considerations are:
> - XML doc files in binary package: Integrate with Visual Studio,
> providing a rich Intellisense experience, Generated at build time from
> source code. Where should they go in the folder structure to make it
> "just work" with VS from binary package?
> - Hosted HTML "Single Version of the Truth" vs HTML/CHM doc files in

Hey Michael, I'm running build and getting the following error:

 
build\scripts> ./build

...
The target 'all' does not exist in the project

...

 

 

Should I be passing a command line argument to build all?

 
----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:39:30 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
>
> @Troy,
>
> Now I don't feel as bad for my long e-mails. ;)
>
> -build scripts
>
> Except for building on mono or running NCover, the scripts work as
> intended. Also end users would need to install the required tools they
> intend to run with the build scripts. The scripts can be included, but it
> would be wise to include those caveats in a read-me somewhere.
>
> And there are ways to override the build scripts for user/custom build
> configurations. For those interested, post questions on a new thread.
>
> When you run the build scripts they should be including the xml files in
> the trunk/bin folder on successful builds. Please do let me know if that
> was not the case on your local machine if you used the scripts to build the
> binaries.
>
> -.snk
> The .snk in the lib folder is the original. When you create a new csproj,
> that is the file you use sign the binary with a strong key. The project
> defaults to creating a copy of the .snk file in its own folder. I can't
> remember if there is a way to just link it to only one file or not, but
> that was the default behavior.
>
> So to answer your question, if users/developers to create their own contrib
> projects or their own ci based upon a stable release tag and plan to use
> the same .snk, then it would be wise to include all of lib. If they are
> just building from a stable branch, you can exclude the .snk file as each
> project that uses it will have its own copy.
>
> - docs
> Generating both chm/html at the moment. I'll push the html version into
> source tonight for the website. and push a zip file with both the chm &
> static html site into a jira ticket. The chm is handy when you're in
> facility that is locked down and need to move around good deal of help
> files on a thumb drive.
>
> The xml files should be included. The xml files are only generated when you
> currently build a binary in Release mode for trunk & 2.9.4g branch. So if
> you build the binaries and the xml files are not there, that is the most
> likely cause.
>
> Unless someone picks up the task of improving the overall xml doc comments
> between versions and generating them, most likely the documents will only
> be updated between releases.
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Prescott,
> >
> > Good job figuring out the signing and creating the release packages!
> > It's non-trivial to figure out the first time from the docs, for sure.
> > Sorry, I have been so busy this month that I wasn't able to provide
> > help before you figured it out on your own. :)
> >
> > Some nitpicky details about the release packages:
> >
> > - Superfluous subfolders: There's an extra layer of subfolders named
> > the same as the zip file which is unneeded
> > - Root should be "trunk" all the time, even in the release packages,
> > to keep relative pathing consistently rooted. So the binary release
> > should have a "bin" subfolder at it's root to match the repo layout
> > - XML doc files should be included in binary release. We have had
> > users state a desire to have them for VS intellisense integration.
> > This was an issue that came up during the last release package build
> > cycle
> > - Various notice files should be included in binary release as well
> > - I don't know about the.SNK file from lib, maybe that should be in
> > the source package, maybe not. I notice it's also in the core project
> > folder. Which one does the project file reference?
> > - .svn folder/files should be removed from source package

I build it using trunk/build/scripts/build.cmd all all - in the scripts
folder.  Make sure you've updated the folder.  That message is suspiciously
close to the message that would appear when it had the bug that would wipe
entire drives.
On Nov 19, 2011 4:25 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Hey Michael, I'm running build and getting the following error:
>
>
>
>
> build\scripts> ./build
>
> ...
> The target 'all' does not exist in the project
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> Should I be passing a command line argument to build all?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:39:30 -0400
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
> >
> > @Troy,
> >
> > Now I don't feel as bad for my long e-mails. ;)
> >
> > -build scripts
> >
> > Except for building on mono or running NCover, the scripts work as
> > intended. Also end users would need to install the required tools they
> > intend to run with the build scripts. The scripts can be included, but it
> > would be wise to include those caveats in a read-me somewhere.
> >
> > And there are ways to override the build scripts for user/custom build
> > configurations. For those interested, post questions on a new thread.
> >
> > When you run the build scripts they should be including the xml files in
> > the trunk/bin folder on successful builds. Please do let me know if that
> > was not the case on your local machine if you used the scripts to build
> the
> > binaries.
> >
> > -.snk
> > The .snk in the lib folder is the original. When you create a new csproj,
> > that is the file you use sign the binary with a strong key. The project
> > defaults to creating a copy of the .snk file in its own folder. I can't
> > remember if there is a way to just link it to only one file or not, but
> > that was the default behavior.
> >
> > So to answer your question, if users/developers to create their own
> contrib
> > projects or their own ci based upon a stable release tag and plan to use
> > the same .snk, then it would be wise to include all of lib. If they are
> > just building from a stable branch, you can exclude the .snk file as each
> > project that uses it will have its own copy.
> >
> > - docs
> > Generating both chm/html at the moment. I'll push the html version into
> > source tonight for the website. and push a zip file with both the chm &
> > static html site into a jira ticket. The chm is handy when you're in
> > facility that is locked down and need to move around good deal of help
> > files on a thumb drive.
> >
> > The xml files should be included. The xml files are only generated when
> you
> > currently build a binary in Release mode for trunk & 2.9.4g branch. So if
> > you build the binaries and the xml files are not there, that is the most
> > likely cause.
> >
> > Unless someone picks up the task of improving the overall xml doc
> comments
> > between versions and generating them, most likely the documents will only
> > be updated between releases.
> >
> > - Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Prescott,
> > >
> > > Good job figuring out the signing and creating the release packages!
> > > It's non-trivial to figure out the first time from the docs, for sure.
> > > Sorry, I have been so busy this month that I wasn't able to provide
> > > help before you figured it out on your own. :)
> > >
> > > Some nitpicky details about the release packages:
> > >
> > > - Superfluous subfolders: There's an extra layer of subfolders named
> > > the same as the zip file which is unneeded
> > > - Root should be "trunk" all the time, even in the release packages,
> > > to keep relative pathing consistently rooted. So the binary release
> > > should have a "bin" subfolder at it's root to match the repo layout
> > > - XML doc files should be included in binary release. We have had

I got lastest - so hopefully not :)

 

I think I'd cry a little bit if it got wiped.

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 17:55:05 -0800
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
>
> I build it using trunk/build/scripts/build.cmd all all - in the scripts
> folder. Make sure you've updated the folder. That message is suspiciously
> close to the message that would appear when it had the bug that would wipe
> entire drives.
> On Nov 19, 2011 4:25 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey Michael, I'm running build and getting the following error:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > build\scripts> ./build
> >
> > ...
> > The target 'all' does not exist in the project
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Should I be passing a command line argument to build all?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:39:30 -0400
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
> > >
> > > @Troy,
> > >
> > > Now I don't feel as bad for my long e-mails. ;)
> > >
> > > -build scripts
> > >
> > > Except for building on mono or running NCover, the scripts work as
> > > intended. Also end users would need to install the required tools they
> > > intend to run with the build scripts. The scripts can be included, but it
> > > would be wise to include those caveats in a read-me somewhere.
> > >
> > > And there are ways to override the build scripts for user/custom build
> > > configurations. For those interested, post questions on a new thread.
> > >
> > > When you run the build scripts they should be including the xml files in
> > > the trunk/bin folder on successful builds. Please do let me know if that
> > > was not the case on your local machine if you used the scripts to build
> > the
> > > binaries.
> > >
> > > -.snk
> > > The .snk in the lib folder is the original. When you create a new csproj,
> > > that is the file you use sign the binary with a strong key. The project
> > > defaults to creating a copy of the .snk file in its own folder. I can't
> > > remember if there is a way to just link it to only one file or not, but
> > > that was the default behavior.
> > >
> > > So to answer your question, if users/developers to create their own
> > contrib
> > > projects or their own ci based upon a stable release tag and plan to use
> > > the same .snk, then it would be wise to include all of lib. If they are
> > > just building from a stable branch, you can exclude the .snk file as each
> > > project that uses it will have its own copy.
> > >
> > > - docs
> > > Generating both chm/html at the moment. I'll push the html version into
> > > source tonight for the website. and push a zip file with both the chm &
> > > static html site into a jira ticket. The chm is handy when you're in
> > > facility that is locked down and need to move around good deal of help
> > > files on a thumb drive.
> > >
> > > The xml files should be included. The xml files are only generated when
> > you
> > > currently build a binary in Release mode for trunk & 2.9.4g branch. So if
> > > you build the binaries and the xml files are not there, that is the most
> > > likely cause.
> > >
> > > Unless someone picks up the task of improving the overall xml doc
> > comments
> > > between versions and generating them, most likely the documents will only
> > > be updated between releases.
> > >
> > > - Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Prescott,
> > > >
> > > > Good job figuring out the signing and creating the release packages!
> > > > It's non-trivial to figure out the first time from the docs, for sure.
> > > > Sorry, I have been so busy this month that I wasn't able to provide
> > > > help before you figured it out on your own. :)

Sounds good I'll commit Stefan's patch this evening as well.

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Michael Herndon
Sent: 10/31/2011 11:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating

@Prescott,

In name of getting this out the door and keeping momentum I'll put those
together and push that into svn sometime late tonight. **

Other things to do once released....  official nuget package, some website
love. and start using the twitter: LuceneDotNet account.  I can help with
these as well.

@all,

If everyone involved for this release could put some time aside after this
release to co-write a checklist/steps to put on the wiki for the release
process in one place, that would be awesome.
**reasoning.....
We've yet to get the SHFB installed on builds and thus I need to write up
some instructions for the installer as it been causing some pain for CI.
Once that hurdle is crossed, I'd like to work with a few people
contributors or committers to make sure others can create docs.  But for
now, there is no point in obstructing the release with that. We've made an
hard line effort at all things outstanding in the last few months and we
should keep with the momentum of getting this out the door.
- Michael

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> Michael - how do we stand with the sandcastle documentation generation?.
> I'm not familiar with using it, but we basically have no real documentation
> for this. It would be great to be able to generate documentation that we
> can then bundle with 2.9.4.
>
>
> Stefan - doc folder was left out intentionally for this reason. Also the
> Lib folder, I left out, I thought it was additional dll's that weren't part
> of Lucene that others might need. I can put that back in. Not even sure
> what the build.cmd file is, but I'll investigate and get it in there.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:00:08 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
> >
> > On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> >
> > > Artifacts are located here:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
> >
> > Is there a tag in svn that is supposed to correspond to them? My guess
> > is <http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/>.
> > But then I find
> >
> > diff -ur svn/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs
> Apache-Lucene.Net-2.
> > 9.4-incubating-RC1.src/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs
> > --- svn/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/MoreLikeThis.cs 2011-04-23
> 01:53:05.3476
> > 64000 +0200
> > +++
> Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC1.src/src/contrib/Similarity/Similar/Mo
> > reLikeThis.cs 2011-10-30 19:35:42.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -769,7 +769,7 @@
> > {
> > for (int j = 0; j < text.Length; j++)
> > {
> > - AddTermFrequencies(new System.IO.StreamReader(text[
> > j]), termFreqMap, fieldName);
> > + AddTermFrequencies(new System.IO.StringReader(text[
> > j]), termFreqMap, fieldName);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -820,7 +820,7 @@
> > /// </param>
> > /// <param name="fieldName">Used by analyzer for any special per-field
> > analysis
> > /// </param>
> > - private void AddTermFrequencies(System.IO.StreamReader r,
> System.Collections.IDictionary termFreqMap, System.String fieldName)
> > + private void AddTermFrequencies(System.IO.TextReader r,
> System.Collections.IDictionary termFreqMap, System.String fieldName)
> > {
> > TokenStream ts = analyzer.TokenStream(fieldName, r);
> > Lucene.Net.Analysis.Token token;
> >
> > so they don't match.
> >
> > The src ZIP doesn't contain build.cmd nor the doc and lib folders. Is
> > this intentional?
> >
> > Signatures and checksums match.
> >
> > The src ZIP contains .svn folders which I don't think they should. No

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    

Third time is the charm:

 

http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/

 

I'll keep it open for 72 hours or so, then if all goes well, I'll make a vote to the general@incubator

 

Thanks everyone for their help getting to this point.

 

~Prescott

 

+1    

So, I haven't looked at the artifacts, but I was just looking over the
source code, and noticed something that we should probably discuss
before voting on the artifacts.

The files in Contrib\Analyzers are nowhere near in sync with 2.9.4...
Not sure how old they are exactly, but they are very different from
Java's 2.9.4 Contrib\Analyzers.

This looks like a relatively small amount of work to update. Do we
want to make a release without updating those to be 2.9.4 compatible?

Are there any other things like this lurking in Contrib that haven't
been updated?

Thanks,
Troy

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Third time is the charm:
>
>
>
> http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/
>
>
>
> I'll keep it open for 72 hours or so, then if all goes well, I'll make a vote to the general@incubator
>
>
>
> Thanks everyone for their help getting to this point.
>
>
>
> ~Prescott
>
>
>
> +1

I'm alright with them being out of partity if only because it seems like a lot of effort is moving away from 2.9.4. The core is all there

 

If everyone else thinks otherwise, I'll start to update those, but otherwise, I'd like to close the chapter on 2.9.4 and put some effort into one of the other items people are working on.

 

My hope is that 2.9.4 is quickly replaced with the next version - we have spent a lot of time sitting on this at this point

 

~P
----------------------------------------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:17:20 -0800
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
>
> So, I haven't looked at the artifacts, but I was just looking over the
> source code, and noticed something that we should probably discuss
> before voting on the artifacts.
>
> The files in Contrib\Analyzers are nowhere near in sync with 2.9.4...
> Not sure how old they are exactly, but they are very different from
> Java's 2.9.4 Contrib\Analyzers.
>
> This looks like a relatively small amount of work to update. Do we
> want to make a release without updating those to be 2.9.4 compatible?
>
> Are there any other things like this lurking in Contrib that haven't
> been updated?
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Third time is the charm:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll keep it open for 72 hours or so, then if all goes well, I'll make a vote to the general@incubator
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks everyone for their help getting to this point.
> >
> >
> >
> > ~Prescott
> >
> >
> >
> > +1    

Some of the contrib stuff will be easier to port than others.  Some of it
relies on features the java character class has that .Net does not have.
If my memory serves me correctly, it has to do with the character map,
essentially java can tell you whig category it lives in, or Arabic,
Chinese, etc. .Net only gives you is letter, is digit, etc.

There are a few other difficulties in the hyphenation package, as well.  It
won't be totally painless.

I'm okay with not including it in the release and porting them later,
either for the next release, or if people request it.  I don't see any
reason we couldnt do it as a separate release, if community demand was high
enough.  So, I'm a +1. For a release as is.

+1

Sent from my phonograph, so there are likely some mistaken. ;)
On Nov 19, 2011 3:55 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> I'm alright with them being out of partity if only because it seems like a
> lot of effort is moving away from 2.9.4. The core is all there
>
>
>
> If everyone else thinks otherwise, I'll start to update those, but
> otherwise, I'd like to close the chapter on 2.9.4 and put some effort into
> one of the other items people are working on.
>
>
>
> My hope is that 2.9.4 is quickly replaced with the next version - we have
> spent a lot of time sitting on this at this point
>
>
>
> ~P
> ----------------------------------------
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:17:20 -0800
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
> >
> > So, I haven't looked at the artifacts, but I was just looking over the
> > source code, and noticed something that we should probably discuss
> > before voting on the artifacts.
> >
> > The files in Contrib\Analyzers are nowhere near in sync with 2.9.4...
> > Not sure how old they are exactly, but they are very different from
> > Java's 2.9.4 Contrib\Analyzers.
> >
> > This looks like a relatively small amount of work to update. Do we
> > want to make a release without updating those to be 2.9.4 compatible?
> >
> > Are there any other things like this lurking in Contrib that haven't
> > been updated?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Troy
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Third time is the charm:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll keep it open for 72 hours or so, then if all goes well, I'll make
> a vote to the general@incubator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks everyone for their help getting to this point.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~Prescott
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +1

On 2011-11-18, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Third time is the charm:

I'm afraid it is not.

> http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/

Sigs and hashes are good.  Source zip and tag match except for the
build/lib/doc dirs that are only inside the tag and which I agree is a
good thing for now.

LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER look good in src.

There is no NOTICE and no DISCLAIMER in the binary zip.  Has it been
this way before?  If so I'm sorry I didn't catch it.  This is a blocker
for me and probably would be for the other IPMC members as well.

RAT is reasonably happy with the source tree.

I can't give a +1 because of the missing files in the binary zip.  If
you just recreated the binary with the two files added (and obviously
resigned it and recalculated the hashes) I'd be happy to change that.

Cheers

        Stefan

I've updated the files - same location
 

~P
----------------------------------------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:34:16 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
>
> On 2011-11-18, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> > Third time is the charm:
>
> I'm afraid it is not.
>
> > http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/
>
> Sigs and hashes are good. Source zip and tag match except for the
> build/lib/doc dirs that are only inside the tag and which I agree is a
> good thing for now.
>
> LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER look good in src.
>
> There is no NOTICE and no DISCLAIMER in the binary zip. Has it been
> this way before? If so I'm sorry I didn't catch it. This is a blocker
> for me and probably would be for the other IPMC members as well.
>
> RAT is reasonably happy with the source tree.
>
> I can't give a +1 because of the missing files in the binary zip. If
> you just recreated the binary with the two files added (and obviously
> resigned it and recalculated the hashes) I'd be happy to change that.
>
> Cheers
>
> Stefan    

On 2011-11-20, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> I've updated the files - same location

Thanks a lot!

Hashes and sigs are good.  All required legal files are in place.  src
zip still matches the tag (so I didn't have to re-run RAT)

+1

Stefan

Damn It - knew i was missing something

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Stefan Bodewig
Sent: 11/19/2011 10:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3

On 2011-11-18, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Third time is the charm:

I'm afraid it is not.

> http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/

Sigs and hashes are good.  Source zip and tag match except for the
build/lib/doc dirs that are only inside the tag and which I agree is a
good thing for now.

LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER look good in src.

There is no NOTICE and no DISCLAIMER in the binary zip.  Has it been
this way before?  If so I'm sorry I didn't catch it.  This is a blocker
for me and probably would be for the other IPMC members as well.

RAT is reasonably happy with the source tree.

I can't give a +1 because of the missing files in the binary zip.  If
you just recreated the binary with the two files added (and obviously
resigned it and recalculated the hashes) I'd be happy to change that.

Cheers

        Stefan

+1 for wiki checklist & ticket for for build scripts to bundle all this
stuff for you.

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Damn It - knew i was missing something
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Stefan Bodewig
> Sent: 11/19/2011 10:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
>
> On 2011-11-18, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> > Third time is the charm:
>
> I'm afraid it is not.
>
> > http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/
>
> Sigs and hashes are good.  Source zip and tag match except for the
> build/lib/doc dirs that are only inside the tag and which I agree is a
> good thing for now.
>
> LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER look good in src.
>
> There is no NOTICE and no DISCLAIMER in the binary zip.  Has it been
> this way before?  If so I'm sorry I didn't catch it.  This is a blocker
> for me and probably would be for the other IPMC members as well.
>
> RAT is reasonably happy with the source tree.
>
> I can't give a +1 because of the missing files in the binary zip.  If
> you just recreated the binary with the two files added (and obviously
> resigned it and recalculated the hashes) I'd be happy to change that.
>
> Cheers
>
>        Stefan
>

I was just thinking about making some in depth documentation about this process. Doing it the first time has had its bumps. I'll get there.

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Michael Herndon
Sent: 11/19/2011 11:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3

+1 for wiki checklist & ticket for for build scripts to bundle all this
stuff for you.

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Damn It - knew i was missing something
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Stefan Bodewig
> Sent: 11/19/2011 10:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
>
> On 2011-11-18, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> > Third time is the charm:
>
> I'm afraid it is not.
>
> > http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/
>
> Sigs and hashes are good.  Source zip and tag match except for the
> build/lib/doc dirs that are only inside the tag and which I agree is a
> good thing for now.
>
> LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER look good in src.
>
> There is no NOTICE and no DISCLAIMER in the binary zip.  Has it been
> this way before?  If so I'm sorry I didn't catch it.  This is a blocker
> for me and probably would be for the other IPMC members as well.
>
> RAT is reasonably happy with the source tree.
>
> I can't give a +1 because of the missing files in the binary zip.  If
> you just recreated the binary with the two files added (and obviously
> resigned it and recalculated the hashes) I'd be happy to change that.
>
> Cheers
>
>        Stefan
>