Hi,

> Jim: This note goes to you, as the RM for the 6.5.1 release.  It looks
> like the documentation for both Lucene and Solr didn't get updated
> correctly.  As noted by Perrin, the Solr documentation all says
> "6.5.1-SNAPSHOT" even though the URL looks correct.  I discovered that
> the Lucene documentation also has this problem.
> 
> http://lucene.apache.org/core/6_5_1/index.html
> 
> If I had any idea how to fix this, I would go ahead and do it, but I
> don't have any idea how.  I do not know if there are other things that
> also need updating besides the Lucene and Solr documentation.

Hi, I think this is indirectly my fault.

The problem is that we no longer ship the javadocs with the Solr release, so 
the process of updating the website requires to copy away the javadocs from the 
source tree after the rlease manager has built the release (there is still an 
issue open to fix this by supplying a "javadocs-only" TGZ file to resolve this 
in a convenient way: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10361).

The documentation of the release now says: Either copy away the javadocs ASAP 
after building the release, or rebuild then later from the sanpshot. 
Unfortunately, I forgot to add the command line parameter -Dversion=6.5.1 in 
the wiki. I will update in 
https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Push_docs.2C_changes_and_javadocs_to_the_CMS_production_tree

The easiest way to fix this is to checkout the release tag from Git and then 
build the javadocs again, using the -Dversion=6.5.1 and redeploy them 
afterwards.

Sorry for the inconsistent docs (my fault). I'd like to solve this in the 
future by packaging a separate TGZ file with all javadocs and also vote on 
them. Currently the release vote excludes the javadocs (at least for solr), 
because they don't ship anymore as artifact. 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10361

Uwe


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to