Itamar, BTW - I ended up setting up a new MyGet Feed https://www.myget.org/gallery/lucene-net-ci. The reason for this is because upon testing the versioning scheme with .NET Core, it was failing to resolve dependencies. You can have a 4 segment version (4.8.0.1), a pre-release version (4.8.0-beta1), but not both (4.8.0.1-beta). So, the whole thing had to be reverted to a lower version range than what is on https://www.myget.org/gallery/lucene-net. If we put new packages with lower version numbers on that feed, the dependent packages won't resolve correctly.
Going forward, I set up the build script to automatically switch from 4.8.0-beta00001 to 4.8.0.1 (by changing the env.VersionSuffix and build counter in TeamCity https://teamcity.jetbrains.com/viewType.html?buildTypeId=LuceneNet_PortableBuilds_LuceneNetRelease) so we can at least patch bugs post-release without the version getting out of sync with Lucene. I am happy to give anyone that needs it ownership of the MyGet feed - but I was planning on doing the ownership invites after creating all of the new NuGet packages so it can all be done at the same time. Shad -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 10:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Release So what is the current status of the licensing issue you raised? FYI I just started reviewing and going through all that has happened here in the last few weeks/months, it all looks very good - thanks Shad and Connie for the hard work. I will PR / commit any items need correction in the next week or so. -- Itamar Syn-Hershko Freelance Developer & Consultant Elasticsearch Partner Microsoft MVP | Lucene.NET PMC http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> http://BigDataBoutique.co.il/ 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. >
