Okay, so it looks like we are back to square 1 then... Over the past few days I realized there are a few things that could use some tweaking before the release:
1. The CHANGES.txt has not been updated with the latest status. 2. We have no way to make a strong-named build as per Itamar's blog post (http://code972.com/blog/2014/04/68-ditching-strong-naming-for-lucene-net). 3. It might be better to rename the Lucene.Net.Icu package to Lucene.Net.ICU (which, if done, is something that should be done now, not after the first beta). Note this is an "extra" package that doesn't exist in Java. Its purpose is to remove the icu.net dependency (that is a PITA and doesn't yet have official .NET Core support) from the more popular packages Lucene.Net.Analysis.Common and Lucene.Net.Highlighter. 4. The Spatial4n.Core and (unreleased) Spatial4n.Core.NTS packages depend on .NET Standard 1.6.1, but Lucene.Net depends on .NET Standard 1.6.0. This causes a non-fatal dependency warning. But we need to update all 3 of the Spatial4n.Core, Spatial4n.Core.NTS, and Lucene.Net.Spatial to fix it. Of course, none of this is absolutely critical for the release. Opinions on whether we should hold up to address these issues (I know this isn't the "official" vote...just a question)? Itamar, I noticed you assigned yourself to the ChineseAnalyzer task. Is that something you want to complete before the first beta? Bear in mind that we will probably need to release fairly frequently at first as bug reports come in and are addressed. Also, you mentioned "over the next week or so" for the review. Not opposed to waiting for you to do your thing, but I am just trying to ensure we reserve all of the NuGet package IDs before any of the other ones are snagged. I suppose I could upload some dummy packages to ensure it doesn't happen again... The main purposes of the beta release on NuGet will be: 1. To get feedback and bug reports 2. To make [more of] the public aware that we are now in beta 3. To recruit more help for completion/optimization/stabilization Thanks, Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2017-05-05, Shad Storhaug wrote: > > > It has been 72 hours since your reply, yet the packages are still at > > the URL below and not at > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/lucenenet/. > > Ah, my fault. I just threw out a link and didn't explain the process, > I'm sorry. > > tldr; you must actively call for a vote. > > Cutting a release is a bit more complex at the ASF than in many other > places. It may look cumbersome but is so in order to legally protect > those who create the release. A release that has been approved by the > PMC is an act of the foundation, so anybody trying to drag you into > court because of the releases content, would end up facing the ASF, > not you. > > For all the glory see http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html > or just read along for the short version. > > That being said, we need to formally vote on the release and we need > at least three PMC members to cast a +1 vote and more PMC members > casting a > +1 than -1s. > > The 72 hours start once the release manager has sent out the VOTE > email, for an example see > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/952a831da7e32103ceade2a2f70d99 > f4e297861e0938fcfcf52955e1@1349569519@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E > for the last time we did that (about five years ago, oh my) and ends > with the release manager tallying the vote > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/eda7e0173b247acd1dcac75dac11f1 > 3ca7d5bc3627bba80048a0574d@1349840288@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.org%3E > > One of the more involved examples is > http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Voting_On_Release - > Commons also has a nice list of things to check for a releaae and an > extra page of all the things that need to be done once the vote has > passed. > > So you need to call for a vote here and 72 hours later you can publish > the release (assuming we muster three +1s, which I'd expect). Given > you are now a PMC member yourself you should have all the karma > required to perform the next steps (or we can arrange to grant it to you). > > Stefan > > PS: the ASF doesn't care whether we call the release ALPHA, beta, > preview or yellow. If the intended audience is the general public and > not the folks subscribing to the dev list, it is a release that has to > follow the process. >
