You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com> on 2011/11/18 10:33:10 UTC
[Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
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
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.
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" <ge...@hotmail.com> 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: thoward37@gmail.com
> > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:17:20 -0800
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > 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 <ge...@hotmail.com>
> 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
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: thoward37@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:17:20 -0800
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> 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 <ge...@hotmail.com> 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
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 <ge...@hotmail.com> 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
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
RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
I've updated the files - same location
~P
----------------------------------------
> From: bodewig@apache.org
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
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