You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@lucene.apache.org by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> on 2009/12/08 19:05:29 UTC
[VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1
Sorry,
I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to "maybe
start one". But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask
again, an I will start the vote for now.
============================================================================
Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of
Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org.
You can find the artifacts here:
http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/
This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on
p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms
to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build,
I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0).
All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was
originally built by Mike McCandless).
============================================================================
What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me):
If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache
archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other
contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the
same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for
2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not
apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this
maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary
distrib.
What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is
different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier
mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last
changed file.
So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my
key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder.
Uwe
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_lucene@fucit.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and
> 2.9
>
>
> : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for
> : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven
> reposititory?
>
> It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before
> publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on and
> released -- including all of the source code in them.
>
> The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a
> vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ... considering
> the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick.
>
> :
> : > I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is
> top-
> : > level
> : > version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter:
> : >
> : > http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/
> : >
> : > I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got
> votes
> : > (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures.
> : >
> : > By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts
> : > svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of
> the
> : > last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn
> version,
> : > even
> : > that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all, but
> not
> : > very nice.
> : >
> : > Maybe we should change build.xml to call "svnversion -c" in future, to
> get
> : > the real number.
> : >
> : > Uwe
> : >
> : > -----
> : > Uwe Schindler
> : > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> : > http://www.thetaphi.de
> : > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> : >
> : >
> : > > -----Original Message-----
> : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
> : > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> : > > Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and
> 2.9
> : > >
> : > > I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then we
> could
> : > > vote to release both of them pretty quickly. I think that should be
> : > easy
> : > > to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and the
> : > > signatures.
> : > >
> : > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
> : > >
> : > > > hi folks,
> : > > > The maven artifacts for fast-vector-highlighter have never been
> pushed
> : > > > since it was released because there were no pom.xml.template
> inside
> : > > > the module. I added a pom file a day ago in the context of
> : > > > LUCENE-2107. I already talked to uwe and grant how to deal with
> this
> : > > > issues and if we should push the artifact for Lucene 2.9 / 3.0.
> Since
> : > > > this is only a metadata file we could consider rebuilding the
> : > > > artefacts and publish them for those releases. I can not remember
> that
> : > > > anything like that happened before, so we should discuss how to
> deal
> : > > > with this situation and if we should wait until 3.1.
> : > > >
> : > > > simon
> : > > >
> : > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> : > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : > > >
> : > >
> : > >
> : > >
> : > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> :
> :
> :
> : ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> :
>
>
>
> -Hoss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
+1
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Sorry,
>
> I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to "maybe
> start one". But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask
> again, an I will start the vote for now.
>
> ============================================================================
> Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of
> Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org.
>
> You can find the artifacts here:
> http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/
>
> This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on
> p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms
> to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build,
> I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0).
>
> All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was
> originally built by Mike McCandless).
> ============================================================================
>
> What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me):
>
> If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache
> archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other
> contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the
> same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for
> 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not
> apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this
> maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary
> distrib.
>
> What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is
> different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier
> mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last
> changed file.
>
> So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my
> key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder.
>
> Uwe
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_lucene@fucit.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and
>> 2.9
>>
>>
>> : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for
>> : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven
>> reposititory?
>>
>> It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before
>> publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on and
>> released -- including all of the source code in them.
>>
>> The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a
>> vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ... considering
>> the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick.
>>
>> :
>> : > I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is
>> top-
>> : > level
>> : > version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter:
>> : >
>> : > http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/
>> : >
>> : > I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got
>> votes
>> : > (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures.
>> : >
>> : > By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts
>> : > svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of
>> the
>> : > last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn
>> version,
>> : > even
>> : > that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all, but
>> not
>> : > very nice.
>> : >
>> : > Maybe we should change build.xml to call "svnversion -c" in future, to
>> get
>> : > the real number.
>> : >
>> : > Uwe
>> : >
>> : > -----
>> : > Uwe Schindler
>> : > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>> : > http://www.thetaphi.de
>> : > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > > -----Original Message-----
>> : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
>> : > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> : > > Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and
>> 2.9
>> : > >
>> : > > I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then we
>> could
>> : > > vote to release both of them pretty quickly. I think that should be
>> : > easy
>> : > > to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and the
>> : > > signatures.
>> : > >
>> : > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
>> : > >
>> : > > > hi folks,
>> : > > > The maven artifacts for fast-vector-highlighter have never been
>> pushed
>> : > > > since it was released because there were no pom.xml.template
>> inside
>> : > > > the module. I added a pom file a day ago in the context of
>> : > > > LUCENE-2107. I already talked to uwe and grant how to deal with
>> this
>> : > > > issues and if we should push the artifact for Lucene 2.9 / 3.0.
>> Since
>> : > > > this is only a metadata file we could consider rebuilding the
>> : > > > artefacts and publish them for those releases. I can not remember
>> that
>> : > > > anything like that happened before, so we should discuss how to
>> deal
>> : > > > with this situation and if we should wait until 3.1.
>> : > > >
>> : > > > simon
>> : > > >
>> : > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> : > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> : > > >
>> : > >
>> : > >
>> : > >
>> : > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> :
>> :
>> :
>> : ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> -Hoss
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/
Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
RE: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
Yeah thanks,
I forget to add also general@lao to the TO line...
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael McCandless [mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:56 PM
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0
> and 2.9.1
>
> +1
>
> (I already +1'd on the other thread, too).
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry,
> >>
> >> I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to
> "maybe
> >> start one". But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I
> ask
> >> again, an I will start the vote for now.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ==========================================================================
> ==
> >> Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter
> of
> >> Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org.
> >>
> >> You can find the artifacts here:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-
> area/<http://people.apache.org/%7Euschindler/staging-area/>
> >>
> >> This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir
> on
> >> p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which
> conforms
> >> to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during
> build,
> >> I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0).
> >>
> >> All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release
> was
> >> originally built by Mike McCandless).
> >>
> >>
> ==========================================================================
> ==
> >>
> >> What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me):
> >>
> >> If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache
> >> archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other
> >> contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from
> the
> >> same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different,
> for
> >> 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does
> not
> >> apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with
> this
> >> maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the
> binary
> >> distrib.
> >>
> >> What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is
> >> different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in
> earlier
> >> mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last
> >> changed file.
> >>
> >> So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by
> my
> >> key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder.
> >>
> >> Uwe
> >>
> >> -----
> >> Uwe Schindler
> >> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> >> http://www.thetaphi.de
> >> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_lucene@fucit.org]
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
> >> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> > Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0
> and
> >> > 2.9
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for
> >> > : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven
> >> > reposititory?
> >> >
> >> > It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done
> before
> >> > publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted
> on
> >> and
> >> > released -- including all of the source code in them.
> >> >
> >> > The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call
> a
> >> > vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ...
> >> considering
> >> > the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick.
> >> >
> >> > :
> >> > : > I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0
> is
> >> > top-
> >> > : > level
> >> > : > version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter:
> >> > : >
> >> > : > http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-
> area/<http://people.apache.org/%7Euschindler/staging-area/>
> >> > : >
> >> > : > I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I
> got
> >> > votes
> >> > : > (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures.
> >> > : >
> >> > : > By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that
> inserts
> >> > : > svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the
> version of
> >> > the
> >> > : > last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn
> >> > version,
> >> > : > even
> >> > : > that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at
> all,
> >> but
> >> > not
> >> > : > very nice.
> >> > : >
> >> > : > Maybe we should change build.xml to call "svnversion -c" in
> future,
> >> to
> >> > get
> >> > : > the real number.
> >> > : >
> >> > : > Uwe
> >> > : >
> >> > : > -----
> >> > : > Uwe Schindler
> >> > : > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> >> > : > http://www.thetaphi.de
> >> > : > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >> > : >
> >> > : >
> >> > : > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> >> > : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
> >> > : > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> > : > > Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0
> and
> >> > 2.9
> >> > : > >
> >> > : > > I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then
> we
> >> > could
> >> > : > > vote to release both of them pretty quickly. I think that
> should
> >> be
> >> > : > easy
> >> > : > > to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and
> the
> >> > : > > signatures.
> >> > : > >
> >> > : > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
> >> > : > >
> >> > : > > > hi folks,
> >> > : > > > The maven artifacts for fast-vector-highlighter have never
> been
> >> > pushed
> >> > : > > > since it was released because there were no pom.xml.template
> >> > inside
> >> > : > > > the module. I added a pom file a day ago in the context of
> >> > : > > > LUCENE-2107. I already talked to uwe and grant how to deal
> with
> >> > this
> >> > : > > > issues and if we should push the artifact for Lucene 2.9 /
> 3.0.
> >> > Since
> >> > : > > > this is only a metadata file we could consider rebuilding the
> >> > : > > > artefacts and publish them for those releases. I can not
> remember
> >> > that
> >> > : > > > anything like that happened before, so we should discuss how
> to
> >> > deal
> >> > : > > > with this situation and if we should wait until 3.1.
> >> > : > > >
> >> > : > > > simon
> >> > : > > >
> >> > : > > >
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > ---
> >> > : > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-
> unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> > : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-
> help@lucene.apache.org
> >> > : > > >
> >> > : > >
> >> > : > >
> >> > : > >
> >> > : > >
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > -
> >> > : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> > : > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-
> help@lucene.apache.org
> >> > : >
> >> > : >
> >> > : >
> >> > : > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> >> > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> > : > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> > :
> >> > :
> >> > :
> >> > : -------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >> > : To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> > : For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> > :
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -Hoss
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ted Dunning, CTO
> > DeepDyve
> >
Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and
2.9.1
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
+1
(I already +1'd on the other thread, too).
Mike
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>
>> Sorry,
>>
>> I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to "maybe
>> start one". But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask
>> again, an I will start the vote for now.
>>
>>
>> ============================================================================
>> Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of
>> Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org.
>>
>> You can find the artifacts here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/<http://people.apache.org/%7Euschindler/staging-area/>
>>
>> This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on
>> p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms
>> to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build,
>> I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0).
>>
>> All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was
>> originally built by Mike McCandless).
>>
>> ============================================================================
>>
>> What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me):
>>
>> If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache
>> archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other
>> contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the
>> same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for
>> 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not
>> apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this
>> maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary
>> distrib.
>>
>> What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is
>> different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier
>> mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last
>> changed file.
>>
>> So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my
>> key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder.
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>> -----
>> Uwe Schindler
>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_lucene@fucit.org]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
>> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and
>> > 2.9
>> >
>> >
>> > : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for
>> > : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven
>> > reposititory?
>> >
>> > It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before
>> > publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on
>> and
>> > released -- including all of the source code in them.
>> >
>> > The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a
>> > vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ...
>> considering
>> > the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick.
>> >
>> > :
>> > : > I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is
>> > top-
>> > : > level
>> > : > version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter:
>> > : >
>> > : > http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/<http://people.apache.org/%7Euschindler/staging-area/>
>> > : >
>> > : > I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got
>> > votes
>> > : > (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures.
>> > : >
>> > : > By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts
>> > : > svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of
>> > the
>> > : > last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn
>> > version,
>> > : > even
>> > : > that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all,
>> but
>> > not
>> > : > very nice.
>> > : >
>> > : > Maybe we should change build.xml to call "svnversion -c" in future,
>> to
>> > get
>> > : > the real number.
>> > : >
>> > : > Uwe
>> > : >
>> > : > -----
>> > : > Uwe Schindler
>> > : > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>> > : > http://www.thetaphi.de
>> > : > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>> > : >
>> > : >
>> > : > > -----Original Message-----
>> > : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> > : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
>> > : > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > : > > Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and
>> > 2.9
>> > : > >
>> > : > > I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then we
>> > could
>> > : > > vote to release both of them pretty quickly. I think that should
>> be
>> > : > easy
>> > : > > to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and the
>> > : > > signatures.
>> > : > >
>> > : > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
>> > : > >
>> > : > > > hi folks,
>> > : > > > The maven artifacts for fast-vector-highlighter have never been
>> > pushed
>> > : > > > since it was released because there were no pom.xml.template
>> > inside
>> > : > > > the module. I added a pom file a day ago in the context of
>> > : > > > LUCENE-2107. I already talked to uwe and grant how to deal with
>> > this
>> > : > > > issues and if we should push the artifact for Lucene 2.9 / 3.0.
>> > Since
>> > : > > > this is only a metadata file we could consider rebuilding the
>> > : > > > artefacts and publish them for those releases. I can not remember
>> > that
>> > : > > > anything like that happened before, so we should discuss how to
>> > deal
>> > : > > > with this situation and if we should wait until 3.1.
>> > : > > >
>> > : > > > simon
>> > : > > >
>> > : > > >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > ---
>> > : > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > : > > >
>> > : > >
>> > : > >
>> > : > >
>> > : > >
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > -
>> > : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > : > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > : >
>> > : >
>> > : >
>> > : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > : > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > :
>> > :
>> > :
>> > : ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > : To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > : For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > :
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -Hoss
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
>
Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and
2.9.1
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> Sorry,
>
> I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to "maybe
> start one". But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask
> again, an I will start the vote for now.
>
>
> ============================================================================
> Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of
> Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org.
>
> You can find the artifacts here:
> http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/<http://people.apache.org/%7Euschindler/staging-area/>
>
> This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on
> p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms
> to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build,
> I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0).
>
> All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was
> originally built by Mike McCandless).
>
> ============================================================================
>
> What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me):
>
> If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache
> archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other
> contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the
> same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for
> 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not
> apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this
> maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary
> distrib.
>
> What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is
> different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier
> mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last
> changed file.
>
> So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my
> key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder.
>
> Uwe
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_lucene@fucit.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and
> > 2.9
> >
> >
> > : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for
> > : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven
> > reposititory?
> >
> > It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before
> > publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on
> and
> > released -- including all of the source code in them.
> >
> > The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a
> > vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ...
> considering
> > the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick.
> >
> > :
> > : > I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is
> > top-
> > : > level
> > : > version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter:
> > : >
> > : > http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/<http://people.apache.org/%7Euschindler/staging-area/>
> > : >
> > : > I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got
> > votes
> > : > (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures.
> > : >
> > : > By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts
> > : > svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of
> > the
> > : > last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn
> > version,
> > : > even
> > : > that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all,
> but
> > not
> > : > very nice.
> > : >
> > : > Maybe we should change build.xml to call "svnversion -c" in future,
> to
> > get
> > : > the real number.
> > : >
> > : > Uwe
> > : >
> > : > -----
> > : > Uwe Schindler
> > : > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> > : > http://www.thetaphi.de
> > : > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> > : >
> > : >
> > : > > -----Original Message-----
> > : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> > : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
> > : > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > : > > Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and
> > 2.9
> > : > >
> > : > > I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then we
> > could
> > : > > vote to release both of them pretty quickly. I think that should
> be
> > : > easy
> > : > > to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and the
> > : > > signatures.
> > : > >
> > : > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
> > : > >
> > : > > > hi folks,
> > : > > > The maven artifacts for fast-vector-highlighter have never been
> > pushed
> > : > > > since it was released because there were no pom.xml.template
> > inside
> > : > > > the module. I added a pom file a day ago in the context of
> > : > > > LUCENE-2107. I already talked to uwe and grant how to deal with
> > this
> > : > > > issues and if we should push the artifact for Lucene 2.9 / 3.0.
> > Since
> > : > > > this is only a metadata file we could consider rebuilding the
> > : > > > artefacts and publish them for those releases. I can not remember
> > that
> > : > > > anything like that happened before, so we should discuss how to
> > deal
> > : > > > with this situation and if we should wait until 3.1.
> > : > > >
> > : > > > simon
> > : > > >
> > : > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---
> > : > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > : > > >
> > : > >
> > : > >
> > : > >
> > : > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > : > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > : >
> > : >
> > : >
> > : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > : > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > :
> > :
> > :
> > : ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > : To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > : For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > :
> >
> >
> >
> > -Hoss
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve