Hi Doug, I did a diff of Java Lucene 2.3.1 and 2.3.2; the change set is small, 2 are XML files and 16 are source files of which indexwriter.java has the most complex changes and will require close attention. Given the change set is small, I'm +1 for the idea of moving to 2.3.2.
Doug, can you please submit a JIRA issue and attach to it the patch of those 18 files for 2.3.2? Lets review and then commit it to the trunk. Regards, -- George > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Sale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:18 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate > > I would like to suggest that we make the next release > candidate 2.3.2 (not 2.3.1). I have made all patches for > this code available on the list and they satisfy all the unit > tests. Additionally, the Lucene 2.3.2 release is only a > bug-fix release, not a feature release (see > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_3_2/ > CHANGES.txt). > > Since there exists a gap in the releases of Lucene.Net (as > compared to those of Lucene), continuity is no reason to > release a 2.3.1 version. In fact, separate releases of 2.3.1 > and 2.3.2 will result in more work, when users will only want > the 2.3.2 release. > > Here is a link to my orignal post with the 2.3.2 patch: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lucene-net- > dev/200810.mbox/%3C8e3fbf150810161402tb68e1edyabf6e669484e3902 > @mail.gmail.com%3E > > Please comment. > > Thanks, > Doug > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, George Aroush > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Doug, > > > > I strongly suggest that 2.3.1 be stabilized first and be formally > > release (or at least be prompted to RC (release candidate) status) > > before you bring in 2.3.2 code base. Since Lucene.Net is still in > > incubation, there is a formal process to make a release -- > search the > > Lucene.Net mailing list or ASF website to find out more. Making a > > release is an important part and a required process toward a > > graduation from incubation; it's important that you and > DIGY experience a formal release process. > > > > Once 2.3.1 is in at least RC status, and the community has > tested it > > without issues, then what need to happen is a copy of 2.3.1 code is > > made from the "trunc" to "tags" repository (i.e.: "svn > copy".) Once > > this happens, then the "trunc" becomes 2.3.2. > > > > So, in a nutshell, before you can check-in your 2.3.2 work, it's > > important to get the current version into RC status. For this to > > happen, the points I highlighted to DIGY must be meet. > > > > Regards, > > > > -- George > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:56 AM > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate > > > > > > I would like to put together the 2.3.1 release candidate ASAP, as > > > I'm currently sitting on the code that is the 2.3.2 port. From a > > > repository perspective, what is the protocol for tagging releases? > > > > > > (Also, thanks to DIGY for executing the tedious process of > > > committing the > > > 2.3.1 patches and closing out the JIRA issues.) > > > > > > -Doug > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I didn't know "release candidate" has so formal meaning. > > > Let's name it > > > > "mature version" for now. > > > > > > > > DIGY. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: George Aroush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:18 AM > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate > > > > > > > > Hi DIGY, > > > > > > > > Few more things are needed before the SVN trunk can be > promoted to > > > > release candidate, those are: > > > > > > > > 1) All AssemblyInfo.cs in /trunck/C#/src/ should have the same > > > > assembly version. > > > > 2) /trunck/C#/src/HISTORY.txt file need to reflect what > has been > > > > fixed, show the build version and that this is a RC (release > > > > candidate) (change it to "final" when it becomes a release) > > > > > > > > After those changes, the community should start using > the code off > > > > this trunk and if there is no issue for, lets say a month, > > > a vote for > > > > release should be called. > > > > > > > > One of the tests that I have always done before I nominate > > > a build for > > > > RC is verify that the index works with Java Lucene; you should > > > > take the time and do some basic test on this area too. Have the > > > same index > > > > be modified by Java Lucene and then by Lucene.Net. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > -- George > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Digy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:03 AM > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All waiting patches to make Nunit tests pass > > > > > (+LUCENENET-159) are applied. > > > > > > > > > > Release candidate for Lucene.Net.2.3.1 is in svn trunk now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DIGY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:08 AM > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Candidate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we have a candidate for the Lucene.Net 2.3.1 > > > release. It > > > > > diverges from the SVN HEAD by the list of patches below. > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch > > > > > LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch > > > > > LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch > > > > > LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector. > > > > > > > > > > patch > > > > > LUCENENET-151 MultiPhraseQuery.patch > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch, FSDirectory.patch > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-154 TestIndexWriterLockRelease.patch > > > > > LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch > > > > > LUCENENET-157 GetFieldNames.patch > > > > > LUCENENET-158 CheckHits.patch > > > > > > > > > > I have attached a comprehensive patch to simplify things > > > for those > > > > > of you who would like to try it out. > > > > > > > > > > 1) Get the latest from SVN HEAD (currently revision 702987) > > > > > 2) Apply Comprehensive.patch from the root directory. > > > > > > > > > > - Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
