Hi, Those 45 minutes is a build and lots of tests executing (net451), and it fails for tests involving netcoreapp1.0.
It looks like I am running with "dotnet --version" 1.0.3. Executing the ".\build\dotnet-install.ps1 -Version 1.0.0-preview2-1-003177" does successfully change "dotnet --version" to 1.0.0-preview2-1-003177. I need to do this _before_ calling ".\build.bat -t" and the tests _starts_. I am now running into issues with references to Microsoft.NETCore.App 1.0.1, but I believe those are already fixed in a later commit by you, and part of the beta2 release. I'll focus on that release from now on. Ref: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/commit/c2bf370f See you in the beta 2 vote thread. ;) // Simon On 2017-05-09 19:02, Shad Storhaug wrote: > Simon, > > You did the right thing by abstaining. I am still trying to pin down what is > happening here, as I am unable to reproduce it. > > You mentioned the build took 45 minutes for it to fail during testing. On a > fast machine, that probably means that the run of the .NET Core tests was > successful, and the .NET Framework tests failed since they run in that order. > It is strange that it is unable to resolve the paths halfway through the test > run though (since we are using the nunit test runner for those tests, I would > expect the problem to be related to that), but the way the paths are being > resolved isn't exactly bullet-proof: > > pushd $base_directory > $testProjects = Get-ChildItem -Path "project.json" -Recurse | ? { > $_.Directory.Name.Contains(".Tests") } > Popd > > If you are familiar with Powershell, could you work with the script to see > (if and) why the paths are not resolving? You can make the script run in a > few seconds by temporarily commenting everything inside of an Exec { } block. > > Thanks, > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Svensson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 2:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001 > > Hi, > > I'm positive to a release, but since someone recently linked the release > process, and I read it, I cannot give a vote since I am unable to comply with > the requirements. > > I'm clearly missing something on my local machine, but I do not yet know > what. I installed the 4.5.1 Dev Pack you linked, but still same failures. I > havn't looked into it further due to time/competence constraints on my part. > > It's the "..., compile as provided, and test the result on their own > platform." that alludes me: > >> "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download > all signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they > meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate > all cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on > their own platform." > > Source: https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval > > // Simon > > On 2017-05-09 03:17, Shad Storhaug wrote: >> It has now been 72 hours since this vote started. Here are the results: >> >> PMC votes: >> >> +1: (3) >> 0: (0) >> -1: (1) >> >> Non-PMC votes: >> +1: (7) (2 of them committers) >> 0: (0) >> -1: (0) >> >> We also heard from Simon Svensson about an issue running tests on the CLI, >> but he did not vote. Technically, he was running the tests from the >> repository, not from the release package. I did some investigation and on a >> clean system without .NET or Visual Studio installed it fails to compile in >> that configuration. It looks like some of the references are using reference >> assemblies, when I believe they should be using NuGet packages that download >> on demand. So, for the time being having the .NET Framework 4.5.1 Developer >> Pack installed is a prerequisite for building >> (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=40772). >> >> I have also confirmed that attempting to build/test with Powershell 2.0 does >> not work. I am testing with 3.0 now (so far it is working), but suffice to >> say the newer the Powershell version the better. >> >> As for testing, this can be done either with Visual Studio 2015: >> http://apache.markmail.org/search/?q=from%3A%22Shad+Storhaug%22#query: >> from%3A%22Shad%20Storhaug%22+page:1+mid:yhrjkuo7kcxougpz+state:results >> >> Or, from the command line using this command: >> >> powershell -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -Command "Import-Module >> .\build\psake.psm1; Invoke-Psake .\build\build.ps1 -Task Default,Test >> -Properties @{prepareForBuild='false';backup_files='false'}" >> >> We should add a switch to build.bat to make that command simpler (i.e. build >> -t), but that is how you can run the tests this time around. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> So technically the vote passes. However, I will give it some more time in >> case anyone else wants to weigh in on whether the issues we have are >> significant enough to reset the release. Presscott, Stefan, Simon, WDYT? >> >> Thanks, >> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Shad Storhaug >> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 4:35 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001 >> >> Itamar, >> >> Thanks for your valuable opinion, but I respectfully disagree. >> >> The main purpose of getting this into the wild is so we can turn the trickle >> of bug reports and pull requests into a flood. We know there are bugs (there >> are still at least a dozen flakey tests, some of them concurrency related). >> But it would take forever to fix them if we had to patch them one at a time, >> cancel the release, fix the next one, cancel the next release, and so on. >> >> As for users being discouraged, I can't imagine the situation being worse >> than the 51 users a day downloading these packages: >> >> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Lucene.Net.Core/ >> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Lucene.Net.Analysis.Common/ >> >> Not only do the unsuspecting downloaders not realize that they are >> unofficial packages, but they are versioned as full releases, despite being >> unstable. Anyone who adapts that API is going to be disappointed with the >> amount of rework they need to do to use the official one. Waiting another 72 >> hours means another 153 potentially discouraged users who think they are >> using production-ready code, whereas releasing the beta immediately means >> those who knowingly decide to push pre-release code into production may or >> may not be discouraged by this bug. In all likelihood, the patch will be out >> before they are ready to release anyway. >> >> IMO, we should push this release forward so we can start collecting >> information on what is broken, recruit some help to fix the bugs, and fully >> expect to have another release in short order (with more than just this one >> patch in it). That's my 2 cents. >> >> Thanks, >> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko >> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 2:31 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001 >> >> Shad, Connie and team - great work on this, happy to see us reaching this >> stage. >> >> I'm voting -1, reason is I think our first public beta should incorporate >> this fix: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/205. This one is >> important, every real-world use case would hit this issue one way or another >> (and I'm expecting our users to run multi-threaded), and I wouldn't want to >> discourage them from trying future versions by running into this bug, which >> I consider rather severe. Let's make this beta count, and waiting another 72 >> hours wouldn't change much. >> >> I will be happy to support the efforts of preparing a fixed version and >> pushing it towards another vote and release. >> >> -- >> >> 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 Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Prescott Nasser >> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Lazaro, you can send an email to [email protected] >>> from your subscribed email to unsubscribe. >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Lazaro Fernandes Lima <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 6:45:39 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001 >>> >>> unsubscribe, please >>> >>> 2017-05-08 10:40 GMT-03:00 John Duerden <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Downloaded and ran beta on a site I support - worked fine. >>>> >>>> Not sure my vote counts but +1 here and thanks for all the work. >>>> >>>> John Duerden >>>> >>>> On 5 May 2017 at 18:15, Shad Storhaug <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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/952a831da7e32103ceade2a2f70 >>>>>> d99 >>>>>> f4e297861e0938fcfcf52955e1@1349569519@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.or >>>>>> g%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/eda7e0173b247acd1dcac75dac1 >>>>>> 1f1 >>>>>> 3ca7d5bc3627bba80048a0574d@1349840288@%3Cdev.lucenenet.apache.or >>>>>> g%3E >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the more involved examples is >>>>>> http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Voting_On_Releas >>>>>> e - 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/lazaroflima >>> - Tornar o simples complicado é fácil, tornar o complicado simples é >>> criatividade, vontade e conhecimento! - >>>
