+1. I agree with Daniel said. Very much appreciated. Thank you Sent from my iPhone
> On May 5, 2017, at 20:04, Roethinger, Alexander <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I can only agree to what Daniel said. > Really great work and very much appreciated! > So +1 from me as well. > > Alexander > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Daniel Kornev [mailto:[email protected]] > Gesendet: Samstag, 6. Mai 2017 02:36 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: RE: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001 > > Not sure if regular members votes make any sense in the process, but +1 from > me regardless. I've been following your journey for the last few years, and I > applaud to great work done. > > > > Daniel > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Shad Storhaug<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 3:15 AM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001 > > > > So, after 4 1/2 years of silence, we are ready to shake up the world with a > new version of Lucene.Net. > > > The source and binary packages are available for inspection at: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucenenet/. > > There is a MyGet feed that can be accessed at: > V2: https://www.myget.org/F/lucene-net-nuget/api/v2 (VS2012+) > V3: https://www.myget.org/F/lucene-net-nuget/api/v3/index.json (VS2015+) > > The tag is: > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/releases/tag/Lucene.Net_4_8_0_beta00001 > > > Please review the beta and vote. > This vote will close no sooner than 72 hours from now, i.e. sometime after > 00:00 UTC 9-May 2017 > > +1 - lets rock > 0 - indifferent > -1 - Not ready, because... > > > Thanks, > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 12:41 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Release > > 3 is the only one I see that we should correct prior to beta. The other three > are all fixable as we go through beta with the community. > > I don't think ChineseAnalyzer needs to be done in this beta either. We > *should* release another beta with changes.txt, and the other fixes. > ChineseAnalyzer can be included in the next beta as well as other issues seen > by the community. > > I'd say fix 3, and I'll +1 a vote (72 hours). Between the 72hr period and and > the fix, Itamar probably has his week, and unless he find's a huge issue, we > can always address it in beta (sorry Itamar, I don't think we have to wait > for your review). > > My $.02. > > ~P > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shad Storhaug [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 10:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Release > > 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. >>
