+1 Looks good, and nice progress. Thanks Shad!
-- 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 Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Simon Svensson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I can confirm that beta00005 builds correctly for me, and all the tests > pass in net451, according to the generated TestResult.xml files in > release/TestResults/net451. However, there are directories created under > release/TestResults/netcoreapp[1.0|2.0], but there are no xml files with > test results there. But powershell didn't crash when running the tests over > the night, so I guess any errors wasn't _that_ fatal. ;) > > // Simon > > > On 2017-10-21 13:59, Shad Storhaug wrote: > >> Simon, >> >> I'd appreciate it if you could attempt to build locally again with the >> new build, 4.8.0-beta00005. There have been a lot of issues discovered and >> patched with the build on the CI server, so I have a feeling this may work >> for you now. If not, it would be nice to know if there are still issues to >> resolve. >> >> Thanks, >> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Simon Svensson [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 10:05 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001 >> >> 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:result >>>> s >>>> >>>> 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! - >>>>> >>>>> > -- > // Simon Svensson >
