You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Digy <di...@gmail.com> on 2008/11/16 16:03:21 UTC
RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Hi All,
All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
DIGY
From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1 release. It diverges
from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
patch
LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things for those of you
who would like to try it out.
1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
- Doug
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by Doug Sale <do...@gmail.com>.
I'm putting that together - I'll submit it this evening.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:56 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> I did a diff of Java Lucene 2.3.1 and 2.3.2; the change set is small, 2 are
> XML files and 16 are source files of which indexwriter.java has the most
> complex changes and will require close attention. Given the change set is
> small, I'm +1 for the idea of moving to 2.3.2.
>
> Doug, can you please submit a JIRA issue and attach to it the patch of
> those
> 18 files for 2.3.2? Lets review and then commit it to the trunk.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:18 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >
> > I would like to suggest that we make the next release
> > candidate 2.3.2 (not 2.3.1). I have made all patches for
> > this code available on the list and they satisfy all the unit
> > tests. Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release is only a
> > bug-fix release, not a feature release (see
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/
> > CHANGES.txt).
> >
> > Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as
> > compared to those of Lucene), continuity is no reason to
> > release a 2.3.1 version. In fact, separate releases of 2.3.1
> > and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when users will only want
> > the 2.3.2 release.
> >
> > Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch:
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net-
> > dev/200810.mbox/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902
> > @mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > Please comment.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Doug
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush
> > <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Doug,
> > >
> > > I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally
> > > release (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status)
> > > before you bring in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in
> > > incubation, there is a formal process to make a release --
> > search the
> > > Lucene.Net mailing list or ASF website to find out more. Making a
> > > release is an important part and a required process toward a
> > > graduation from incubation; it's important that you and
> > DIGY experience a formal release process.
> > >
> > > Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has
> > tested it
> > > without issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is
> > > made from the "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn
> > copy".) Once
> > > this happens, then the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
> > >
> > > So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's
> > > important to get the current version into RC status. For this to
> > > happen, the points I highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > >
> > > > I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate ASAP, as
> > > > I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2 port. From a
> > > > repository perspective, what is the protocol for tagging releases?
> > > >
> > > > (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
> > > > committing the
> > > > 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
> > > >
> > > > -Doug
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
> > > > Let's name it
> > > > > "mature version" for now.
> > > > >
> > > > > DIGY.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi DIGY,
> > > > >
> > > > > Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be
> > promoted to
> > > > > release candidate, those are:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
> > > > > assembly version.
> > > > > 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what
> > has been
> > > > > fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
> > > > > candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
> > > > >
> > > > > After those changes, the community should start using
> > the code off
> > > > > this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
> > > > a vote for
> > > > > release should be called.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
> > > > a build for
> > > > > RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should
> > > > > take the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
> > > > same index
> > > > > be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > -- George
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> > > > > > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DIGY
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> > > > release. It
> > > > > > diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> > > > > > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> > > > > > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> > > > > > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > patch
> > > > > > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> > > > > > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> > > > > > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> > > > > > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
> > > > for those
> > > > > > of you who would like to try it out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> > > > > > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Doug
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by Halis SARITAŞ <hs...@gmail.com>.
In order to catch up current Lucene Java version more quickly and keep
the project up to date, I agree with friends about releasing version 2.3.2.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Sean Carpenter <st...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2.3.2 seems like the right choice to me.
> Sean Carpenter
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:16 AM, xzxz@mail.ru <xz...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > I think it is good idea.
> >
> > Andrei
> >
> > Doug Sale ?????:
> >
> > I would like to suggest that we make the next release candidate 2.3.2
> (not
> >> 2.3.1). I have made all patches for this code available on the list and
> >> they satisfy all the unit tests. Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release
> >> is
> >> only a bug-fix release, not a feature release (see
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/CHANGES.txt
> >> ).
> >>
> >> Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as compared to
> >> those
> >> of Lucene), continuity is no reason to release a 2.3.1 version. In
> fact,
> >> separate releases of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when
> users
> >> will only want the 2.3.2 release.
> >>
> >> Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch:
> >>
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net-dev/200810.mbox/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>
> >> Please comment.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Doug
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Doug,
> >>>
> >>> I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally
> release
> >>> (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) before you
> >>> bring
> >>> in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is
> a
> >>> formal process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing list
> or
> >>> ASF website to find out more. Making a release is an important part
> and
> >>> a
> >>> required process toward a graduation from incubation; it's important
> that
> >>> you and DIGY experience a formal release process.
> >>>
> >>> Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has tested it
> >>> without
> >>> issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is made from
> the
> >>> "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn copy".) Once this happens,
> then
> >>> the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
> >>>
> >>> So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's
> >>> important
> >>> to get the current version into RC status. For this to happen, the
> >>> points
> >>> I
> >>> highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> -- George
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
> >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
> >>>> ASAP, as I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2
> >>>> port. From a repository perspective, what is the protocol
> >>>> for tagging releases?
> >>>>
> >>>> (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
> >>>> committing the
> >>>> 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
> >>>>
> >>>> -Doug
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Let's name it
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> "mature version" for now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> DIGY.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
> >>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi DIGY,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to
> >>>>> release candidate, those are:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
> >>>>> assembly version.
> >>>>> 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
> >>>>> fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
> >>>>> candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After those changes, the community should start using the code off
> >>>>> this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> a vote for
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> release should be called.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> a build for
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take
> >>>>> the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> same index
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- George
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> >>>>>> (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DIGY
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> release. It
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> >>>>>> LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> >>>>>> LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> >>>>>> LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> patch
> >>>>>> LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> >>>>>> LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> >>>>>> LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> >>>>>> LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> for those
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> of you who would like to try it out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> >>>>>> 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Doug
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by Sean Carpenter <st...@gmail.com>.
2.3.2 seems like the right choice to me.
Sean Carpenter
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:16 AM, xzxz@mail.ru <xz...@mail.ru> wrote:
> I think it is good idea.
>
> Andrei
>
> Doug Sale ?????:
>
> I would like to suggest that we make the next release candidate 2.3.2 (not
>> 2.3.1). I have made all patches for this code available on the list and
>> they satisfy all the unit tests. Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release
>> is
>> only a bug-fix release, not a feature release (see
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/CHANGES.txt
>> ).
>>
>> Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as compared to
>> those
>> of Lucene), continuity is no reason to release a 2.3.1 version. In fact,
>> separate releases of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when users
>> will only want the 2.3.2 release.
>>
>> Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net-dev/200810.mbox/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>> Please comment.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Doug
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Doug,
>>>
>>> I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally release
>>> (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) before you
>>> bring
>>> in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is a
>>> formal process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing list or
>>> ASF website to find out more. Making a release is an important part and
>>> a
>>> required process toward a graduation from incubation; it's important that
>>> you and DIGY experience a formal release process.
>>>
>>> Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has tested it
>>> without
>>> issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is made from the
>>> "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn copy".) Once this happens, then
>>> the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
>>>
>>> So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's
>>> important
>>> to get the current version into RC status. For this to happen, the
>>> points
>>> I
>>> highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -- George
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>>
>>>> I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
>>>> ASAP, as I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2
>>>> port. From a repository perspective, what is the protocol
>>>> for tagging releases?
>>>>
>>>> (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
>>>> committing the
>>>> 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
>>>>
>>>> -Doug
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Let's name it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "mature version" for now.
>>>>>
>>>>> DIGY.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi DIGY,
>>>>>
>>>>> Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to
>>>>> release candidate, those are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
>>>>> assembly version.
>>>>> 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
>>>>> fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
>>>>> candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
>>>>>
>>>>> After those changes, the community should start using the code off
>>>>> this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> a vote for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> release should be called.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> a build for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take
>>>>> the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> same index
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> -- George
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
>>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
>>>>>> (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DIGY
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
>>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> release. It
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
>>>>>> LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
>>>>>> LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
>>>>>> LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> patch
>>>>>> LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
>>>>>> LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
>>>>>> LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
>>>>>> LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> for those
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of you who would like to try it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
>>>>>> 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Doug
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by "xzxz@mail.ru" <xz...@mail.ru>.
I think it is good idea.
Andrei
Doug Sale ?????:
> I would like to suggest that we make the next release candidate 2.3.2 (not
> 2.3.1). I have made all patches for this code available on the list and
> they satisfy all the unit tests. Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release is
> only a bug-fix release, not a feature release (see
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/CHANGES.txt).
>
> Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as compared to those
> of Lucene), continuity is no reason to release a 2.3.1 version. In fact,
> separate releases of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when users
> will only want the 2.3.2 release.
>
> Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net-dev/200810.mbox/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Please comment.
>
> Thanks,
> Doug
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally release
>> (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) before you bring
>> in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is a
>> formal process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing list or
>> ASF website to find out more. Making a release is an important part and a
>> required process toward a graduation from incubation; it's important that
>> you and DIGY experience a formal release process.
>>
>> Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has tested it
>> without
>> issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is made from the
>> "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn copy".) Once this happens, then
>> the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
>>
>> So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's important
>> to get the current version into RC status. For this to happen, the points
>> I
>> highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -- George
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>
>>> I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
>>> ASAP, as I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2
>>> port. From a repository perspective, what is the protocol
>>> for tagging releases?
>>>
>>> (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
>>> committing the
>>> 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
>>>
>>> -Doug
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
>>>>
>>> Let's name it
>>>
>>>> "mature version" for now.
>>>>
>>>> DIGY.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>>
>>>> Hi DIGY,
>>>>
>>>> Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to
>>>> release candidate, those are:
>>>>
>>>> 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
>>>> assembly version.
>>>> 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
>>>> fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
>>>> candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
>>>>
>>>> After those changes, the community should start using the code off
>>>> this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
>>>>
>>> a vote for
>>>
>>>> release should be called.
>>>>
>>>> One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
>>>>
>>> a build for
>>>
>>>> RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take
>>>> the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
>>>>
>>> same index
>>>
>>>> be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> -- George
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
>>>>> (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
>>>>>
>>>>> Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DIGY
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
>>>>>
>>> release. It
>>>
>>>>> diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
>>>>>
>>>>> LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
>>>>>
>>>>> patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
>>>>>
>>>>> LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
>>>>>
>>>>> LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
>>>>>
>>>>> I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
>>>>>
>>> for those
>>>
>>>>> of you who would like to try it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
>>>>> 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Doug
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@optusnet.com.au>.
I guess, it is more for commiters to discuss , but just based on common
sense I agree that users including myself want 2.3.2 given all unit
tests are successful.
To release something with known bugs when fixes are ready doesn't seem
very sensible.
Doug Sale wrote:
> I would like to suggest that we make the next release candidate 2.3.2 (not
> 2.3.1). I have made all patches for this code available on the list and
> they satisfy all the unit tests. Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release is
> only a bug-fix release, not a feature release (see
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/CHANGES.txt).
>
> Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as compared to those
> of Lucene), continuity is no reason to release a 2.3.1 version. In fact,
> separate releases of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when users
> will only want the 2.3.2 release.
>
> Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net-dev/200810.mbox/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Please comment.
>
> Thanks,
> Doug
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally release
>> (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) before you bring
>> in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is a
>> formal process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing list or
>> ASF website to find out more. Making a release is an important part and a
>> required process toward a graduation from incubation; it's important that
>> you and DIGY experience a formal release process.
>>
>> Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has tested it
>> without
>> issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is made from the
>> "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn copy".) Once this happens, then
>> the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
>>
>> So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's important
>> to get the current version into RC status. For this to happen, the points
>> I
>> highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -- George
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>
>>> I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
>>> ASAP, as I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2
>>> port. From a repository perspective, what is the protocol
>>> for tagging releases?
>>>
>>> (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
>>> committing the
>>> 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
>>>
>>> -Doug
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
>>>>
>>> Let's name it
>>>
>>>> "mature version" for now.
>>>>
>>>> DIGY.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>>
>>>> Hi DIGY,
>>>>
>>>> Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to
>>>> release candidate, those are:
>>>>
>>>> 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
>>>> assembly version.
>>>> 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
>>>> fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
>>>> candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
>>>>
>>>> After those changes, the community should start using the code off
>>>> this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
>>>>
>>> a vote for
>>>
>>>> release should be called.
>>>>
>>>> One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
>>>>
>>> a build for
>>>
>>>> RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take
>>>> the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
>>>>
>>> same index
>>>
>>>> be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> -- George
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
>>>>> (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
>>>>>
>>>>> Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DIGY
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
>>>>>
>>> release. It
>>>
>>>>> diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
>>>>>
>>>>> LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
>>>>>
>>>>> patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
>>>>>
>>>>> LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
>>>>>
>>>>> LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
>>>>> LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
>>>>>
>>>>> I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
>>>>>
>>> for those
>>>
>>>>> of you who would like to try it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
>>>>> 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Doug
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.8/1801 - Release Date: 11/20/2008 9:11 AM
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by Marko Lahma <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1
-Marko
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:18 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
> I would like to suggest that we make the next release candidate 2.3.2 (not
> 2.3.1). I have made all patches for this code available on the list and
> they satisfy all the unit tests. Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release is
> only a bug-fix release, not a feature release (see
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/CHANGES.txt).
>
> Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as compared to those
> of Lucene), continuity is no reason to release a 2.3.1 version. In fact,
> separate releases of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when users
> will only want the 2.3.2 release.
>
> Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net-dev/200810.mbo
> x/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Please comment.
>
> Thanks,
> Doug
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally release
>> (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) before you
> bring
>> in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is a
>> formal process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing list or
>> ASF website to find out more. Making a release is an important part and a
>> required process toward a graduation from incubation; it's important that
>> you and DIGY experience a formal release process.
>>
>> Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has tested it
>> without
>> issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is made from the
>> "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn copy".) Once this happens, then
>> the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
>>
>> So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's important
>> to get the current version into RC status. For this to happen, the points
>> I
>> highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -- George
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
>> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>> >
>> > I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
>> > ASAP, as I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2
>> > port. From a repository perspective, what is the protocol
>> > for tagging releases?
>> >
>> > (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
>> > committing the
>> > 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
>> >
>> > -Doug
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
>> > Let's name it
>> > > "mature version" for now.
>> > >
>> > > DIGY.
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
>> > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
>> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>> > >
>> > > Hi DIGY,
>> > >
>> > > Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to
>> > > release candidate, those are:
>> > >
>> > > 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
>> > > assembly version.
>> > > 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
>> > > fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
>> > > candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
>> > >
>> > > After those changes, the community should start using the code off
>> > > this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
>> > a vote for
>> > > release should be called.
>> > >
>> > > One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
>> > a build for
>> > > RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take
>> > > the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
>> > same index
>> > > be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > -- George
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
>> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi All,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
>> > > > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
>> > > >
>> > > > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > DIGY
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
>> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
>> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
>> > release. It
>> > > > diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
>> > > >
>> > > > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
>> > > >
>> > > > patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
>> > > >
>> > > > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
>> > > >
>> > > > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
>> > > > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
>> > > >
>> > > > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
>> > for those
>> > > > of you who would like to try it out.
>> > > >
>> > > > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
>> > > > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
>> > > >
>> > > > - Doug
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
+1
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:18 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
I would like to suggest that we make the next release candidate 2.3.2 (not
2.3.1). I have made all patches for this code available on the list and
they satisfy all the unit tests. Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release is
only a bug-fix release, not a feature release (see
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/CHANGES.txt).
Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as compared to those
of Lucene), continuity is no reason to release a 2.3.1 version. In fact,
separate releases of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when users
will only want the 2.3.2 release.
Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net-dev/200810.mbo
x/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902@mail.gmail.com%3E
Please comment.
Thanks,
Doug
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally release
> (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) before you
bring
> in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is a
> formal process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing list or
> ASF website to find out more. Making a release is an important part and a
> required process toward a graduation from incubation; it's important that
> you and DIGY experience a formal release process.
>
> Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has tested it
> without
> issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is made from the
> "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn copy".) Once this happens, then
> the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
>
> So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's important
> to get the current version into RC status. For this to happen, the points
> I
> highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >
> > I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
> > ASAP, as I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2
> > port. From a repository perspective, what is the protocol
> > for tagging releases?
> >
> > (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
> > committing the
> > 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
> >
> > -Doug
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
> > Let's name it
> > > "mature version" for now.
> > >
> > > DIGY.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > >
> > > Hi DIGY,
> > >
> > > Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to
> > > release candidate, those are:
> > >
> > > 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
> > > assembly version.
> > > 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
> > > fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
> > > candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
> > >
> > > After those changes, the community should start using the code off
> > > this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
> > a vote for
> > > release should be called.
> > >
> > > One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
> > a build for
> > > RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take
> > > the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
> > same index
> > > be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> > > > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
> > > >
> > > > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DIGY
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> > release. It
> > > > diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
> > > >
> > > > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
> > > >
> > > > patch
> > > > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
> > > >
> > > > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
> > > >
> > > > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
> > > >
> > > > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
> > for those
> > > > of you who would like to try it out.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> > > > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
> > > >
> > > > - Doug
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Doug,
I did a diff of Java Lucene 2.3.1 and 2.3.2; the change set is small, 2 are
XML files and 16 are source files of which indexwriter.java has the most
complex changes and will require close attention. Given the change set is
small, I'm +1 for the idea of moving to 2.3.2.
Doug, can you please submit a JIRA issue and attach to it the patch of those
18 files for 2.3.2? Lets review and then commit it to the trunk.
Regards,
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:18 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
> I would like to suggest that we make the next release
> candidate 2.3.2 (not 2.3.1). I have made all patches for
> this code available on the list and they satisfy all the unit
> tests. Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release is only a
> bug-fix release, not a feature release (see
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/
> CHANGES.txt).
>
> Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as
> compared to those of Lucene), continuity is no reason to
> release a 2.3.1 version. In fact, separate releases of 2.3.1
> and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when users will only want
> the 2.3.2 release.
>
> Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net-
> dev/200810.mbox/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902
> @mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Please comment.
>
> Thanks,
> Doug
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush
> <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Doug,
> >
> > I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally
> > release (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status)
> > before you bring in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in
> > incubation, there is a formal process to make a release --
> search the
> > Lucene.Net mailing list or ASF website to find out more. Making a
> > release is an important part and a required process toward a
> > graduation from incubation; it's important that you and
> DIGY experience a formal release process.
> >
> > Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has
> tested it
> > without issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is
> > made from the "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn
> copy".) Once
> > this happens, then the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
> >
> > So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's
> > important to get the current version into RC status. For this to
> > happen, the points I highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > >
> > > I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate ASAP, as
> > > I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2 port. From a
> > > repository perspective, what is the protocol for tagging releases?
> > >
> > > (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
> > > committing the
> > > 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
> > >
> > > -Doug
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
> > > Let's name it
> > > > "mature version" for now.
> > > >
> > > > DIGY.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > >
> > > > Hi DIGY,
> > > >
> > > > Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be
> promoted to
> > > > release candidate, those are:
> > > >
> > > > 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
> > > > assembly version.
> > > > 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what
> has been
> > > > fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
> > > > candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
> > > >
> > > > After those changes, the community should start using
> the code off
> > > > this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
> > > a vote for
> > > > release should be called.
> > > >
> > > > One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
> > > a build for
> > > > RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should
> > > > take the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
> > > same index
> > > > be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > -- George
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> > > > > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
> > > > >
> > > > > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DIGY
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> > > release. It
> > > > > diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
> > > > >
> > > > > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> > > > > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> > > > > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> > > > > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
> > > > >
> > > > > patch
> > > > > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
> > > > >
> > > > > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
> > > > >
> > > > > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> > > > > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> > > > > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> > > > > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
> > > > >
> > > > > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
> > > for those
> > > > > of you who would like to try it out.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> > > > > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Doug
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by Doug Sale <do...@gmail.com>.
I would like to suggest that we make the next release candidate 2.3.2 (not
2.3.1). I have made all patches for this code available on the list and
they satisfy all the unit tests. Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release is
only a bug-fix release, not a feature release (see
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/CHANGES.txt).
Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as compared to those
of Lucene), continuity is no reason to release a 2.3.1 version. In fact,
separate releases of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when users
will only want the 2.3.2 release.
Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net-dev/200810.mbox/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902@mail.gmail.com%3E
Please comment.
Thanks,
Doug
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally release
> (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) before you bring
> in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is a
> formal process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing list or
> ASF website to find out more. Making a release is an important part and a
> required process toward a graduation from incubation; it's important that
> you and DIGY experience a formal release process.
>
> Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has tested it
> without
> issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is made from the
> "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn copy".) Once this happens, then
> the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
>
> So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's important
> to get the current version into RC status. For this to happen, the points
> I
> highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >
> > I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
> > ASAP, as I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2
> > port. From a repository perspective, what is the protocol
> > for tagging releases?
> >
> > (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
> > committing the
> > 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
> >
> > -Doug
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
> > Let's name it
> > > "mature version" for now.
> > >
> > > DIGY.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > >
> > > Hi DIGY,
> > >
> > > Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to
> > > release candidate, those are:
> > >
> > > 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
> > > assembly version.
> > > 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
> > > fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
> > > candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
> > >
> > > After those changes, the community should start using the code off
> > > this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
> > a vote for
> > > release should be called.
> > >
> > > One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
> > a build for
> > > RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take
> > > the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
> > same index
> > > be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> > > > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
> > > >
> > > > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DIGY
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> > release. It
> > > > diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
> > > >
> > > > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
> > > >
> > > > patch
> > > > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
> > > >
> > > > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
> > > >
> > > > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
> > > >
> > > > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
> > for those
> > > > of you who would like to try it out.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> > > > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
> > > >
> > > > - Doug
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Ron,
I would not suggest it, for those reasons:
1) Since 2.3.1 isn't RC yet, if you do find an issue with it, chances are
it's also in 2.3.2 so you have to fix it in two places. This maybe get a
bit tricky if the change in 2.3.2 is in a newly ported area of code.
2) Since 2.3.1 isn't RC yet, If you have an issue in 2.3.2, you will not
know for sure if it's port issue or a real issue carried over from 2.3.1.
3) Jumping to 2.3.2 without RC'ing 2.3.1, discourages additional work on
2.3.1 and thus jeopardizes it from reaching RC and then officially releasing
it.
Keep in mind, the whole point of incubation is to learn the Apache way so
the project can graduate -- in my opinion, it's important to formally
release 2.3.1 which I don't think is that far off.
Regards,
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Grabowski [mailto:rongrabowski@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:09 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
> Can't you start the 2.3.2 stuff in a branch them copy it into
> trunk once 2.3.1 ships?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:01:56 PM
> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be
> formally release (or at least be prompted to RC (release
> candidate) status) before you bring in 2.3.2 code base.
> Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is a formal
> process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing
> list or ASF website to find out more. Making a release is an
> important part and a required process toward a graduation
> from incubation; it's important that you and DIGY experience
> a formal release process.
>
> Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has
> tested it without issues, then what need to happen is a copy
> of 2.3.1 code is made from the "trunc" to "tags" repository
> (i.e.: "svn copy".) Once this happens, then the "trunc"
> becomes 2.3.2.
>
> So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work,
> it's important to get the current version into RC status.
> For this to happen, the points I highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >
> > I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
> ASAP, as I'm
> > currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2 port. From a
> > repository perspective, what is the protocol for tagging releases?
> >
> > (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
> committing
> > the
> > 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
> >
> > -Doug
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
> > Let's name it
> > > "mature version" for now.
> > >
> > > DIGY.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > >
> > > Hi DIGY,
> > >
> > > Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be
> promoted to
> > > release candidate, those are:
> > >
> > > 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
> > > assembly version.
> > > 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
> > > fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
> > > candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
> > >
> > > After those changes, the community should start using the
> code off
> > > this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
> > a vote for
> > > release should be called.
> > >
> > > One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
> > a build for
> > > RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you
> should take
> > > the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
> > same index
> > > be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> > > > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
> > > >
> > > > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DIGY
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> > release. It
> > > > diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
> > > >
> > > > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
> > > >
> > > > patch
> > > > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
> > > >
> > > > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
> > > >
> > > > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> > > > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
> > > >
> > > > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
> > for those
> > > > of you who would like to try it out.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> > > > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
> > > >
> > > > - Doug
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by Ron Grabowski <ro...@yahoo.com>.
Can't you start the 2.3.2 stuff in a branch them copy it into trunk once 2.3.1 ships?
----- Original Message ----
From: George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:01:56 PM
Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Hi Doug,
I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally release
(or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) before you bring
in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is a
formal process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing list or
ASF website to find out more. Making a release is an important part and a
required process toward a graduation from incubation; it's important that
you and DIGY experience a formal release process.
Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has tested it without
issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is made from the
"trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn copy".) Once this happens, then
the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's important
to get the current version into RC status. For this to happen, the points I
highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
Regards,
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
> I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
> ASAP, as I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2
> port. From a repository perspective, what is the protocol
> for tagging releases?
>
> (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
> committing the
> 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
>
> -Doug
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
> Let's name it
> > "mature version" for now.
> >
> > DIGY.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >
> > Hi DIGY,
> >
> > Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to
> > release candidate, those are:
> >
> > 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
> > assembly version.
> > 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
> > fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
> > candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
> >
> > After those changes, the community should start using the code off
> > this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
> a vote for
> > release should be called.
> >
> > One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
> a build for
> > RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take
> > the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
> same index
> > be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> > > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
> > >
> > > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > DIGY
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> release. It
> > > diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
> > >
> > > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> > > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> > > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> > > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
> > >
> > > patch
> > > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
> > >
> > > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
> > >
> > > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> > > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> > > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> > > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
> > >
> > > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
> for those
> > > of you who would like to try it out.
> > >
> > > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> > > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
> > >
> > > - Doug
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Doug,
I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally release
(or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) before you bring
in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in incubation, there is a
formal process to make a release -- search the Lucene.Net mailing list or
ASF website to find out more. Making a release is an important part and a
required process toward a graduation from incubation; it's important that
you and DIGY experience a formal release process.
Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has tested it without
issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is made from the
"trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn copy".) Once this happens, then
the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2.
So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's important
to get the current version into RC status. For this to happen, the points I
highlighted to DIGY must be meet.
Regards,
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
> I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate
> ASAP, as I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2
> port. From a repository perspective, what is the protocol
> for tagging releases?
>
> (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of
> committing the
> 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
>
> -Doug
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning.
> Let's name it
> > "mature version" for now.
> >
> > DIGY.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >
> > Hi DIGY,
> >
> > Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to
> > release candidate, those are:
> >
> > 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same
> > assembly version.
> > 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been
> > fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release
> > candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release)
> >
> > After those changes, the community should start using the code off
> > this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month,
> a vote for
> > release should be called.
> >
> > One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate
> a build for
> > RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take
> > the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the
> same index
> > be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> > > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
> > >
> > > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > DIGY
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> release. It
> > > diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
> > >
> > > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> > > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> > > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> > > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
> > >
> > > patch
> > > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
> > >
> > > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
> > >
> > > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> > > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> > > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> > > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
> > >
> > > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things
> for those
> > > of you who would like to try it out.
> > >
> > > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> > > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
> > >
> > > - Doug
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by Doug Sale <do...@gmail.com>.
I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate ASAP, as I'm
currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2 port. From a repository
perspective, what is the protocol for tagging releases?
(Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of committing the
2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.)
-Doug
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning. Let's name it
> "mature version" for now.
>
> DIGY.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
> Hi DIGY,
>
> Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to release
> candidate, those are:
>
> 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same assembly
> version.
> 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been fixed,
> show
> the build version and that this is a RC (release candidate) (change it to
> "final" when it becomes a release)
>
> After those changes, the community should start using the code off this
> trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month, a vote for release
> should be called.
>
> One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate a build for RC
> is
> verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take the time and
> do some basic test on this area too. Have the same index be modified by
> Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> >
> > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
> >
> > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
> >
> >
> >
> > DIGY
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> > release. It diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
> >
> > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
> >
> > patch
> > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
> >
> > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
> >
> > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
> >
> > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things for
> > those of you who would like to try it out.
> >
> > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
> >
> > - Doug
> >
> >
>
>
RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning. Let's name it
"mature version" for now.
DIGY.
-----Original Message-----
From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Hi DIGY,
Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to release
candidate, those are:
1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same assembly
version.
2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been fixed, show
the build version and that this is a RC (release candidate) (change it to
"final" when it becomes a release)
After those changes, the community should start using the code off this
trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month, a vote for release
should be called.
One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate a build for RC is
verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take the time and
do some basic test on this area too. Have the same index be modified by
Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
Regards,
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
>
> Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
>
>
>
> DIGY
>
>
>
> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
>
>
> I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> release. It diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
>
> LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
>
> patch
> LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
>
> LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
>
> LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
>
> I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things for
> those of you who would like to try it out.
>
> 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
>
> - Doug
>
>
RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi DIGY,
Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be promoted to release
candidate, those are:
1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same assembly
version.
2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what has been fixed, show
the build version and that this is a RC (release candidate) (change it to
"final" when it becomes a release)
After those changes, the community should start using the code off this
trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month, a vote for release
should be called.
One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate a build for RC is
verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should take the time and
do some basic test on this area too. Have the same index be modified by
Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net.
Regards,
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass
> (+LUCENENET-159) are applied.
>
> Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now.
>
>
>
> DIGY
>
>
>
> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate
>
>
>
> I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1
> release. It diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below.
>
> LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch
> LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch
> LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch
> LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.
>
> patch
> LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch
>
> LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch
>
> LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch
> LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch
> LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch
> LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch
>
> I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things for
> those of you who would like to try it out.
>
> 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987)
> 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory.
>
> - Doug
>
>