You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Shad Storhaug <sh...@shadstorhaug.com> on 2017/05/01 16:43:12 UTC
RE: Release
Stefan,
Shall we give the release process another try?
http://www.shadstorhaug.com/lucenenet-4.8.0-beta00001.zip
Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 8:12 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release
On 2017-04-26, Shad Storhaug wrote:
> Those files did come from the OpenJDK (which I figured was "open" - I
> guess not).
"open" and "free" have so different meanings to different people :-)
The GPL contains requirements on top of what is required by the Apache Software License (and the opposite is also true, at least for GPLv2). An ASF release is supposed to mean "there won't be any obligations beyond what the Apache Software License asks for". That's why the license compatibility list exists.
> The ByteBuffer from Harmony at first glance looks identical to the JDK
> except for the license,
It's not unlikely OpenJDK used the one from Harmony, but I don't want to speculate. In either case, Harmony should be a safe origin for us.
A big thank you for looking into this.
> The main problem was - no tests.
I'm not really familiar with the Harmony code base but you may be able to find tests in there as well.
>> The signatures and md5 hashes work for me, but I'm not sure which sha
>> hash you are using. Based on its length it could be SHA512 but then
>> the hashes don't match for me (using sha512sum on Linux).
> Hmm - I used SHA512. Here are the commands I used.
My fault, I must have been checksumming the wrong file, all is good.
Many thanks
Stefan
RE: Release
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
Regarding a vote, do we need to vote to release beta versions? I honestly don't recall...it's been so long ☹
-----Original Message-----
From: Shad Storhaug [mailto:shad@shadstorhaug.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 9:56 PM
To: bodewig@apache.org
Cc: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: RE: Release
Stefan,
It has been 72 hours since your reply, yet the packages are still at the URL below and not at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/lucenenet/. I realize they may take a while to propagate there, but when is the appropriate time to upload to NuGet? Also, is there another way to check the status of the vote?
Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 11:08 AM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release
On 2017-05-01, Shad Storhaug wrote:
> Shall we give the release process another try?
> http://www.shadstorhaug.com/lucenenet-4.8.0-beta00001.zip
revision 19438 of https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucenenet
Stefan
RE: Release
Posted by Shad Storhaug <sh...@shadstorhaug.com>.
Itamar,
BTW - I ended up setting up a new MyGet Feed https://www.myget.org/gallery/lucene-net-ci. The reason for this is because upon testing the versioning scheme with .NET Core, it was failing to resolve dependencies. You can have a 4 segment version (4.8.0.1), a pre-release version (4.8.0-beta1), but not both (4.8.0.1-beta). So, the whole thing had to be reverted to a lower version range than what is on https://www.myget.org/gallery/lucene-net. If we put new packages with lower version numbers on that feed, the dependent packages won't resolve correctly.
Going forward, I set up the build script to automatically switch from 4.8.0-beta00001 to 4.8.0.1 (by changing the env.VersionSuffix and build counter in TeamCity https://teamcity.jetbrains.com/viewType.html?buildTypeId=LuceneNet_PortableBuilds_LuceneNetRelease) so we can at least patch bugs post-release without the version getting out of sync with Lucene.
I am happy to give anyone that needs it ownership of the MyGet feed - but I was planning on doing the ownership invites after creating all of the new NuGet packages so it can all be done at the same time.
Shad
-----Original Message-----
From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 10:53 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release
So what is the current status of the licensing issue you raised?
FYI I just started reviewing and going through all that has happened here in the last few weeks/months, it all looks very good - thanks Shad and Connie for the hard work. I will PR / commit any items need correction in the next week or so.
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Elasticsearch Partner
Microsoft MVP | Lucene.NET PMC
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> http://BigDataBoutique.co.il/
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2017-05-05, Shad Storhaug wrote:
>
> > It has been 72 hours since your reply, yet the packages are still at
> > the URL below and not at
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/lucenenet/.
>
> Ah, my fault. I just threw out a link and didn't explain the process,
> I'm sorry.
>
> tldr; you must actively call for a vote.
>
> Cutting a release is a bit more complex at the ASF than in many other
> places. It may look cumbersome but is so in order to legally protect
> those who create the release. A release that has been approved by the
> PMC is an act of the foundation, so anybody trying to drag you into
> court because of the releases content, would end up facing the ASF,
> not you.
>
> For all the glory see http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
> or just read along for the short version.
>
> That being said, we need to formally vote on the release and we need
> at least three PMC members to cast a +1 vote and more PMC members
> casting a
> +1 than -1s.
>
> The 72 hours start once the release manager has sent out the VOTE
> email, for an example see
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/952a831da7e32103ceade2a2f70d99
> f4e297861e0938fcfcf52955e1@1349569519@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
> for the last time we did that (about five years ago, oh my) and ends
> with the release manager tallying the vote
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/eda7e0173b247acd1dcac75dac11f1
> 3ca7d5bc3627bba80048a0574d@1349840288@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
>
> One of the more involved examples is
> http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Voting_On_Release -
> Commons also has a nice list of things to check for a releaae and an
> extra page of all the things that need to be done once the vote has
> passed.
>
> So you need to call for a vote here and 72 hours later you can publish
> the release (assuming we muster three +1s, which I'd expect). Given
> you are now a PMC member yourself you should have all the karma
> required to perform the next steps (or we can arrange to grant it to you).
>
> Stefan
>
> PS: the ASF doesn't care whether we call the release ALPHA, beta,
> preview or yellow. If the intended audience is the general public and
> not the folks subscribing to the dev list, it is a release that has to
> follow the process.
>
RE: Release
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
3 is the only one I see that we should correct prior to beta. The other three are all fixable as we go through beta with the community.
I don't think ChineseAnalyzer needs to be done in this beta either. We *should* release another beta with changes.txt, and the other fixes. ChineseAnalyzer can be included in the next beta as well as other issues seen by the community.
I'd say fix 3, and I'll +1 a vote (72 hours). Between the 72hr period and and the fix, Itamar probably has his week, and unless he find's a huge issue, we can always address it in beta (sorry Itamar, I don't think we have to wait for your review).
My $.02.
~P
-----Original Message-----
From: Shad Storhaug [mailto:shad@shadstorhaug.com]
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 10:17 AM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: RE: Release
Okay, so it looks like we are back to square 1 then...
Over the past few days I realized there are a few things that could use some tweaking before the release:
1. The CHANGES.txt has not been updated with the latest status.
2. We have no way to make a strong-named build as per Itamar's blog post (http://code972.com/blog/2014/04/68-ditching-strong-naming-for-lucene-net).
3. It might be better to rename the Lucene.Net.Icu package to Lucene.Net.ICU (which, if done, is something that should be done now, not after the first beta). Note this is an "extra" package that doesn't exist in Java. Its purpose is to remove the icu.net dependency (that is a PITA and doesn't yet have official .NET Core support) from the more popular packages Lucene.Net.Analysis.Common and Lucene.Net.Highlighter.
4. The Spatial4n.Core and (unreleased) Spatial4n.Core.NTS packages depend on .NET Standard 1.6.1, but Lucene.Net depends on .NET Standard 1.6.0. This causes a non-fatal dependency warning. But we need to update all 3 of the Spatial4n.Core, Spatial4n.Core.NTS, and Lucene.Net.Spatial to fix it.
Of course, none of this is absolutely critical for the release. Opinions on whether we should hold up to address these issues (I know this isn't the "official" vote...just a question)?
Itamar, I noticed you assigned yourself to the ChineseAnalyzer task. Is that something you want to complete before the first beta? Bear in mind that we will probably need to release fairly frequently at first as bug reports come in and are addressed.
Also, you mentioned "over the next week or so" for the review. Not opposed to waiting for you to do your thing, but I am just trying to ensure we reserve all of the NuGet package IDs before any of the other ones are snagged. I suppose I could upload some dummy packages to ensure it doesn't happen again...
The main purposes of the beta release on NuGet will be:
1. To get feedback and bug reports
2. To make [more of] the public aware that we are now in beta 3. To recruit more help for completion/optimization/stabilization
Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2017-05-05, Shad Storhaug wrote:
>
> > It has been 72 hours since your reply, yet the packages are still at
> > the URL below and not at
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/lucenenet/.
>
> Ah, my fault. I just threw out a link and didn't explain the process,
> I'm sorry.
>
> tldr; you must actively call for a vote.
>
> Cutting a release is a bit more complex at the ASF than in many other
> places. It may look cumbersome but is so in order to legally protect
> those who create the release. A release that has been approved by the
> PMC is an act of the foundation, so anybody trying to drag you into
> court because of the releases content, would end up facing the ASF,
> not you.
>
> For all the glory see http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
> or just read along for the short version.
>
> That being said, we need to formally vote on the release and we need
> at least three PMC members to cast a +1 vote and more PMC members
> casting a
> +1 than -1s.
>
> The 72 hours start once the release manager has sent out the VOTE
> email, for an example see
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/952a831da7e32103ceade2a2f70d99
> f4e297861e0938fcfcf52955e1@1349569519@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
> for the last time we did that (about five years ago, oh my) and ends
> with the release manager tallying the vote
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/eda7e0173b247acd1dcac75dac11f1
> 3ca7d5bc3627bba80048a0574d@1349840288@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
>
> One of the more involved examples is
> http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Voting_On_Release -
> Commons also has a nice list of things to check for a releaae and an
> extra page of all the things that need to be done once the vote has
> passed.
>
> So you need to call for a vote here and 72 hours later you can publish
> the release (assuming we muster three +1s, which I'd expect). Given
> you are now a PMC member yourself you should have all the karma
> required to perform the next steps (or we can arrange to grant it to you).
>
> Stefan
>
> PS: the ASF doesn't care whether we call the release ALPHA, beta,
> preview or yellow. If the intended audience is the general public and
> not the folks subscribing to the dev list, it is a release that has to
> follow the process.
>
Re: Release
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2017-05-05, Shad Storhaug wrote:
> Over the past few days I realized there are a few things that could use some tweaking before the release:
> 1. The CHANGES.txt has not been updated with the latest status.
I wouldn't re-roll a beta for that.
> 2. We have no way to make a strong-named build as per Itamar's blog post (http://code972.com/blog/2014/04/68-ditching-strong-naming-for-lucene-net).
IIRC we wanted to provide build instructions for people who want strong
named assemblies. I'd expect those build instructions to be independent
of the release itself.
> 3. It might be better to rename the Lucene.Net.Icu package to
> Lucene.Net.ICU (which, if done, is something that should be done now,
> not after the first beta).
Agreed.
> 4. The Spatial4n.Core and (unreleased) Spatial4n.Core.NTS packages
> depend on .NET Standard 1.6.1, but Lucene.Net depends on .NET Standard
> 1.6.0. This causes a non-fatal dependency warning. But we need to
> update all 3 of the Spatial4n.Core, Spatial4n.Core.NTS, and
> Lucene.Net.Spatial to fix it.
If you are going to create new artifacts, the it may be worth doing
that. But I wouldn't think this is a blocker either.
Stefan
RE: Release
Posted by Shad Storhaug <sh...@shadstorhaug.com>.
Okay, so it looks like we are back to square 1 then...
Over the past few days I realized there are a few things that could use some tweaking before the release:
1. The CHANGES.txt has not been updated with the latest status.
2. We have no way to make a strong-named build as per Itamar's blog post (http://code972.com/blog/2014/04/68-ditching-strong-naming-for-lucene-net).
3. It might be better to rename the Lucene.Net.Icu package to Lucene.Net.ICU (which, if done, is something that should be done now, not after the first beta). Note this is an "extra" package that doesn't exist in Java. Its purpose is to remove the icu.net dependency (that is a PITA and doesn't yet have official .NET Core support) from the more popular packages Lucene.Net.Analysis.Common and Lucene.Net.Highlighter.
4. The Spatial4n.Core and (unreleased) Spatial4n.Core.NTS packages depend on .NET Standard 1.6.1, but Lucene.Net depends on .NET Standard 1.6.0. This causes a non-fatal dependency warning. But we need to update all 3 of the Spatial4n.Core, Spatial4n.Core.NTS, and Lucene.Net.Spatial to fix it.
Of course, none of this is absolutely critical for the release. Opinions on whether we should hold up to address these issues (I know this isn't the "official" vote...just a question)?
Itamar, I noticed you assigned yourself to the ChineseAnalyzer task. Is that something you want to complete before the first beta? Bear in mind that we will probably need to release fairly frequently at first as bug reports come in and are addressed.
Also, you mentioned "over the next week or so" for the review. Not opposed to waiting for you to do your thing, but I am just trying to ensure we reserve all of the NuGet package IDs before any of the other ones are snagged. I suppose I could upload some dummy packages to ensure it doesn't happen again...
The main purposes of the beta release on NuGet will be:
1. To get feedback and bug reports
2. To make [more of] the public aware that we are now in beta
3. To recruit more help for completion/optimization/stabilization
Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2017-05-05, Shad Storhaug wrote:
>
> > It has been 72 hours since your reply, yet the packages are still at
> > the URL below and not at
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/lucenenet/.
>
> Ah, my fault. I just threw out a link and didn't explain the process,
> I'm sorry.
>
> tldr; you must actively call for a vote.
>
> Cutting a release is a bit more complex at the ASF than in many other
> places. It may look cumbersome but is so in order to legally protect
> those who create the release. A release that has been approved by the
> PMC is an act of the foundation, so anybody trying to drag you into
> court because of the releases content, would end up facing the ASF,
> not you.
>
> For all the glory see http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
> or just read along for the short version.
>
> That being said, we need to formally vote on the release and we need
> at least three PMC members to cast a +1 vote and more PMC members
> casting a
> +1 than -1s.
>
> The 72 hours start once the release manager has sent out the VOTE
> email, for an example see
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/952a831da7e32103ceade2a2f70d99
> f4e297861e0938fcfcf52955e1@1349569519@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
> for the last time we did that (about five years ago, oh my) and ends
> with the release manager tallying the vote
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/eda7e0173b247acd1dcac75dac11f1
> 3ca7d5bc3627bba80048a0574d@1349840288@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
>
> One of the more involved examples is
> http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Voting_On_Release -
> Commons also has a nice list of things to check for a releaae and an
> extra page of all the things that need to be done once the vote has
> passed.
>
> So you need to call for a vote here and 72 hours later you can publish
> the release (assuming we muster three +1s, which I'd expect). Given
> you are now a PMC member yourself you should have all the karma
> required to perform the next steps (or we can arrange to grant it to you).
>
> Stefan
>
> PS: the ASF doesn't care whether we call the release ALPHA, beta,
> preview or yellow. If the intended audience is the general public and
> not the folks subscribing to the dev list, it is a release that has to
> follow the process.
>
Re: Release
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2017-05-05, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> So what is the current status of the licensing issue you raised?
I have fixed all files I oculd find in master and Shad was kind enough
to clean up after me. :-)
Shad also replaced all GPLed files stemming from OpenJDK with Apache
licensed alternatives from Harmony.
Stefan
Re: Release
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
So what is the current status of the licensing issue you raised?
FYI I just started reviewing and going through all that has happened here
in the last few weeks/months, it all looks very good - thanks Shad and
Connie for the hard work. I will PR / commit any items need correction in
the next week or so.
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Elasticsearch Partner
Microsoft MVP | Lucene.NET PMC
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
http://BigDataBoutique.co.il/
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2017-05-05, Shad Storhaug wrote:
>
> > It has been 72 hours since your reply, yet the packages are still at
> > the URL below and not at
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/lucenenet/.
>
> Ah, my fault. I just threw out a link and didn't explain the process,
> I'm sorry.
>
> tldr; you must actively call for a vote.
>
> Cutting a release is a bit more complex at the ASF than in many other
> places. It may look cumbersome but is so in order to legally protect
> those who create the release. A release that has been approved by the
> PMC is an act of the foundation, so anybody trying to drag you into
> court because of the releases content, would end up facing the ASF, not
> you.
>
> For all the glory see http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html or
> just read along for the short version.
>
> That being said, we need to formally vote on the release and we need at
> least three PMC members to cast a +1 vote and more PMC members casting a
> +1 than -1s.
>
> The 72 hours start once the release manager has sent out the VOTE email,
> for an example see
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/952a831da7e32103ceade2a2f70d99
> f4e297861e0938fcfcf52955e1@1349569519@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
> for the last time we did that (about five years ago, oh my) and ends
> with the release manager tallying the vote
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/eda7e0173b247acd1dcac75dac11f1
> 3ca7d5bc3627bba80048a0574d@1349840288@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
>
> One of the more involved examples is
> http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Voting_On_Release -
> Commons also has a nice list of things to check for a releaae and an
> extra page of all the things that need to be done once the vote has
> passed.
>
> So you need to call for a vote here and 72 hours later you can publish
> the release (assuming we muster three +1s, which I'd expect). Given you
> are now a PMC member yourself you should have all the karma required to
> perform the next steps (or we can arrange to grant it to you).
>
> Stefan
>
> PS: the ASF doesn't care whether we call the release ALPHA, beta,
> preview or yellow. If the intended audience is the general public and
> not the folks subscribing to the dev list, it is a release that has to
> follow the process.
>
Re: Release
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2017-05-05, Shad Storhaug wrote:
> It has been 72 hours since your reply, yet the packages are still at
> the URL below and not at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/lucenenet/.
Ah, my fault. I just threw out a link and didn't explain the process,
I'm sorry.
tldr; you must actively call for a vote.
Cutting a release is a bit more complex at the ASF than in many other
places. It may look cumbersome but is so in order to legally protect
those who create the release. A release that has been approved by the
PMC is an act of the foundation, so anybody trying to drag you into
court because of the releases content, would end up facing the ASF, not
you.
For all the glory see http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html or
just read along for the short version.
That being said, we need to formally vote on the release and we need at
least three PMC members to cast a +1 vote and more PMC members casting a
+1 than -1s.
The 72 hours start once the release manager has sent out the VOTE email,
for an example see
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/952a831da7e32103ceade2a2f70d99f4e297861e0938fcfcf52955e1@1349569519@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
for the last time we did that (about five years ago, oh my) and ends
with the release manager tallying the vote
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/eda7e0173b247acd1dcac75dac11f13ca7d5bc3627bba80048a0574d@1349840288@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E
One of the more involved examples is
http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Voting_On_Release -
Commons also has a nice list of things to check for a releaae and an
extra page of all the things that need to be done once the vote has
passed.
So you need to call for a vote here and 72 hours later you can publish
the release (assuming we muster three +1s, which I'd expect). Given you
are now a PMC member yourself you should have all the karma required to
perform the next steps (or we can arrange to grant it to you).
Stefan
PS: the ASF doesn't care whether we call the release ALPHA, beta,
preview or yellow. If the intended audience is the general public and
not the folks subscribing to the dev list, it is a release that has to
follow the process.
RE: Release
Posted by Shad Storhaug <sh...@shadstorhaug.com>.
Stefan,
It has been 72 hours since your reply, yet the packages are still at the URL below and not at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/lucenenet/. I realize they may take a while to propagate there, but when is the appropriate time to upload to NuGet? Also, is there another way to check the status of the vote?
Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 11:08 AM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release
On 2017-05-01, Shad Storhaug wrote:
> Shall we give the release process another try?
> http://www.shadstorhaug.com/lucenenet-4.8.0-beta00001.zip
revision 19438 of https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucenenet
Stefan
Re: Release
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2017-05-01, Shad Storhaug wrote:
> Shall we give the release process another try?
> http://www.shadstorhaug.com/lucenenet-4.8.0-beta00001.zip
revision 19438 of https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucenenet
Stefan