I got 3 binding votes from Grant, Mike, and Ted (and one from Simon, who was a big help on Sunday evening when I created the artifacts), so I push the maven artifacts onto the rsync repo in few minutes.
Thanks! ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -----Original Message----- > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and > 2.9.1 > > Sorry, > > I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to "maybe > start one". But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I > ask > again, an I will start the vote for now. > > ========================================================================== > == > Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of > Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org. > > You can find the artifacts here: > http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ > > This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on > p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which > conforms > to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during > build, > I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0). > > All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was > originally built by Mike McCandless). > ========================================================================== > == > > What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me): > > If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache > archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other > contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the > same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for > 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not > apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with > this > maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the > binary > distrib. > > What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is > different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier > mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last > changed file. > > So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my > key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder. > > Uwe > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 > and > > 2.9 > > > > > > : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for > > : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven > > reposititory? > > > > It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before > > publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on > and > > released -- including all of the source code in them. > > > > The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a > > vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ... > considering > > the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick. > > > > : > > : > I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is > > top- > > : > level > > : > version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter: > > : > > > : > http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ > > : > > > : > I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got > > votes > > : > (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures. > > : > > > : > By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts > > : > svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version > of > > the > > : > last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn > > version, > > : > even > > : > that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all, > but > > not > > : > very nice. > > : > > > : > Maybe we should change build.xml to call "svnversion -c" in future, > to > > get > > : > the real number. > > : > > > : > Uwe > > : > > > : > ----- > > : > Uwe Schindler > > : > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > > : > http://www.thetaphi.de > > : > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > : > > > : > > > : > > -----Original Message----- > > : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org] > > : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM > > : > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > > : > > Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 > and > > 2.9 > > : > > > > : > > I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then we > > could > > : > > vote to release both of them pretty quickly. I think that should > be > > : > easy > > : > > to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and > the > > : > > signatures. > > : > > > > : > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > > : > > > > : > > > hi folks, > > : > > > The maven artifacts for fast-vector-highlighter have never been > > pushed > > : > > > since it was released because there were no pom.xml.template > > inside > > : > > > the module. I added a pom file a day ago in the context of > > : > > > LUCENE-2107. I already talked to uwe and grant how to deal with > > this > > : > > > issues and if we should push the artifact for Lucene 2.9 / 3.0. > > Since > > : > > > this is only a metadata file we could consider rebuilding the > > : > > > artefacts and publish them for those releases. I can not > remember > > that > > : > > > anything like that happened before, so we should discuss how to > > deal > > : > > > with this situation and if we should wait until 3.1. > > : > > > > > : > > > simon > > : > > > > > : > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > --- > > : > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > : > > > > > : > > > > : > > > > : > > > > : > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > > - > > : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > : > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > : > > > : > > > : > > > : > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > : > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > : > > : > > : > > : --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > : To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > : For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > : > > > > > > > > -Hoss > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
