+1 On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:20 PM Srini V <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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. > >> >
