I had no difficulty building it in Visual Studio 2005. The assembly copyright information appears to be out of date; shouldn't it read 2011 not 2009 ?
- Neal -----Original Message----- From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 2:23 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Troy Howard Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4 Tag [+1] svn export and command line build successful; I'll keep you all posted . . . On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Troy Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. Once we're ready to call this revision an RC, it should be tagged as > such. > > Wyatt: Thanks for helping to test! Looking forward to your results. > > Thanks, > Troy > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Granroth, Neal V. > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> No, the URL in DIGY's email apepars correct and the SVN revision appears to >> be 1086410. >> >> Question: Should there be a tag for Lucene.Net_2_9_4 as there are for >> previous release candidates? >> >> - Neal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:15 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: digy digy >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4 >> >> Thanks. For anyone watching, the corrected clickable link is >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/. >> >> Also, just to make sure we are looking at this right, the revision we >> should be using is 1089138 -- main thing is I've been in and out of >> town, not caught up on anything and I'd hate to start building stuff >> against the wrong version . . >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:10 PM, digy digy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sorry, no binaries. You can download the source from >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C#/src/Lucene.Net >>> >>> DIGY >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Wyatt Barnett >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Actually about to dive into a big search tweaking spike in a certain >>>> project here, happy to do it on 2.9.4. Got binaries? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Troy Howard <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > We don't have any sort of QA report on the latest build. DIGY called >>>> > for testing, but I haven't seen anyone respond to that request >>>> > indicating successful testing. >>>> > >>>> > So, how do we want to manage this? >>>> > >>>> > In the business world, we'd never think of making a release without >>>> > extensive QA first. In my other open source projects, either we've >>>> > managed QA ourselves by 'switching hats' for a couple weeks prior to >>>> > release, or just crossed our fingers because the user base was too >>>> > small. >>>> > >>>> > Lucene.Net is a fairly high-profile project, with a large user base. I >>>> > think it would not be responsible to make a release without a formal >>>> > QA process. We do have extensive unit tests, but do you think those >>>> > are sufficient to cover our QA needs? Should we try to find community >>>> > members with a specialty in software testing that would be willing to >>>> > fulfill this role on our project? Should we just swap hats? >>>> > >>>> > I didn't worry about this issue with the latest 2.9.2 release because >>>> > it was QAed by the user base for a long time before it was an >>>> > 'official release'. Maybe this is an effective tactic? Release first, >>>> > and let the user base roll in bug reports fixing them on yet later >>>> > minor maintenance releases? This seems to be the method a lot of >>>> > projects use (i.e. no specific QA process, but rather an organic >>>> > process of 'try our best then deal with bug reports later'). >>>> > >>>> > What do we think about this? >>>> > >>>> > Thanks, >>>> > Troy >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Prescott Nasser <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hey all, >>>> >> >>>> >> I know we have a number of outstanding JIRA issues, but I think most of >>>> them have been handled for the 2.9.4 release? Do we have anything >>>> outstanding that is holding back a new release? >>>> >> >>>> >> ~P >>>> > >>>> >>> >> >
