Yes. Once we're ready to call this revision an RC, it should be tagged as such.
Wyatt: Thanks for helping to test! Looking forward to your results. Thanks, Troy On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Granroth, Neal V. <neal.granr...@thermofisher.com> wrote: > > No, the URL in DIGY's email apepars correct and the SVN revision appears to > be 1086410. > > Question: Should there be a tag for Lucene.Net_2_9_4 as there are for > previous release candidates? > > - Neal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barn...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:15 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Cc: digy digy > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4 > > Thanks. For anyone watching, the corrected clickable link is > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/. > > Also, just to make sure we are looking at this right, the revision we > should be using is 1089138 -- main thing is I've been in and out of > town, not caught up on anything and I'd hate to start building stuff > against the wrong version . . > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:10 PM, digy digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sorry, no binaries. You can download the source from >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/C#/src/Lucene.Net >> >> DIGY >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Wyatt Barnett >> <wyatt.barn...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Actually about to dive into a big search tweaking spike in a certain >>> project here, happy to do it on 2.9.4. Got binaries? >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > We don't have any sort of QA report on the latest build. DIGY called >>> > for testing, but I haven't seen anyone respond to that request >>> > indicating successful testing. >>> > >>> > So, how do we want to manage this? >>> > >>> > In the business world, we'd never think of making a release without >>> > extensive QA first. In my other open source projects, either we've >>> > managed QA ourselves by 'switching hats' for a couple weeks prior to >>> > release, or just crossed our fingers because the user base was too >>> > small. >>> > >>> > Lucene.Net is a fairly high-profile project, with a large user base. I >>> > think it would not be responsible to make a release without a formal >>> > QA process. We do have extensive unit tests, but do you think those >>> > are sufficient to cover our QA needs? Should we try to find community >>> > members with a specialty in software testing that would be willing to >>> > fulfill this role on our project? Should we just swap hats? >>> > >>> > I didn't worry about this issue with the latest 2.9.2 release because >>> > it was QAed by the user base for a long time before it was an >>> > 'official release'. Maybe this is an effective tactic? Release first, >>> > and let the user base roll in bug reports fixing them on yet later >>> > minor maintenance releases? This seems to be the method a lot of >>> > projects use (i.e. no specific QA process, but rather an organic >>> > process of 'try our best then deal with bug reports later'). >>> > >>> > What do we think about this? >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Troy >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hey all, >>> >> >>> >> I know we have a number of outstanding JIRA issues, but I think most of >>> them have been handled for the 2.9.4 release? Do we have anything >>> outstanding that is holding back a new release? >>> >> >>> >> ~P >>> > >>> >> >
