I can rebuild it, but the trick is replacing the version of it in svn so that it does not cause svnsync and cms to choke. Last time I just pushed it into branch/site/docs. However, that is not publicly visible for the incubation website, so Prescott had to do an svn move.
I'm not quite sure how to go about it this time around. I would push it to jira, but it caps uploads at 10 mb. And I definitely don't want to cause infra any grief. Thoughts/Suggestions on how to proceed ? On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Christopher Currens <currens.ch...@gmail.com > wrote: > I've committed the changes to the xml documentation to the repo. > > I built the documentation, but I wasn't sure how Michael packaged the > documentation in [LUCENENET-452]. If someone could either rebuild the > documentation or let me know how it was done for the release, then we can > open it up for another vote to release it. > > > Thanks, > Christopher > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com > >wrote: > > > I dont mind > > > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > ________________________________ > > From: Christopher Currens > > Sent: 11/4/2011 5:08 PM > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubator-RC2 Documentation > > > > A few days ago, after RC1 was put up for a vote to release, I started > > working on [LUCENENET-438] by cleaning up the documentation. The current > > state of the documentation is pretty bad, there are many unconverted > > remnants of javadoc comments (ie, @link, @see, etc..). I wanted to do > this > > simply to get our documentation up to a more readable level. > > > > I had expected this to take quite a long time, but with the magic of > > regular expressions and find and replace, I'm nearly done with the > > conversion, this all on the heels of the RC2 that was just put up to > vote. > > I will probably wind up finishing the cleanup of the documentation > > comments before Monday. I would have said something earlier had I known > it > > wouldn't take me long and I likely wouldn't have made a vote on releasing > > RC2. > > > > So, if no one is opposed to it, we may consider to wait on RC2, > regenerate > > new documentation after I push the changes to SVN, and package it for > > another RC (Sorry, Prescott!!). It might be nice to have those > > documentation issues fixed. Like I said before, I hadn't really expected > > to finish it so quickly, and hadn't even though it could be ready in time > > for 2.9.4 release. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Christopher > > >
