Hi Alexey,
I believe this version of Lucene.Net will be the last version that can be
compiled with the .NET 2.0 runtime which is what .NET 3.5 runs on. There
was a vote on supported runtime versions by the community this past year,
The community widely supported to drop .NET 2.0 runtime after the
/2011 5:42 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 release couldn't be compiled for .Net3.5
Hi Alexey,
I believe this version of Lucene.Net will be the last version that can be
compiled with the .NET 2.0 runtime which is what .NET 3.5 runs on. There
was a vote
On 2011-11-29, Prescott Nasser wrote:
1. Move the artifacts to the distribution place (not sure where or how yet)
/www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/lucene.net/
make sure all files and directories are owned by the group incubator and
group writable. If you create new directories, set the
Any chance you guys fix and merge this
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-450 before releasing?
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.comwrote:
Alright- this took me way too long, I'm sorry for that.
Could you guys please take a look at:
with these
~Prescott
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 01:14:52 +0200
From: ita...@code972.com
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4 RC1
Any chance you guys fix and merge this
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-450 before
Hi Prescott,
thank you for pushing things forward.
On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Done - i've uploaded the new files to the same place. I actually found
an issue with the bin.zip file, so it was good that I merged that bug
fix in.
I'm pretty sure you know that, but if you decide to
Done - i've uploaded the new files to the same place. I actually found
an issue with the bin.zip file, so it was good that I merged that bug
fix in.
I'm pretty sure you know that, but if you decide to do something like
this after you've started the vote, please cancel the vote, bump the
On 2011-10-03, Prescott Nasser wrote:
I think we're ready, i just dont know the procedures to call a vote.
Don't know the exact details for Lucene.Net but the general approach is
likely always the same.
* Make sure your PGP key is inside the KEYS file people will use to
check the artifacts
...@hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 1:17 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
I see, so you're essentially saying, I can simply remove the volatile
keyword in this case, and it's exactly the same becuase I am only using it
for read and writes?
So
NP
From: Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:31 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org, casper...@caspershouse.com
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
That helps thanks. No Jira although I will put one in.
Sent
So I now have the scripts exporting the html site. Does the current
cms/site some how link to ~/site/docs ?
Or if we publish the documents online they would need to into two
directories ~/site/docs/version for posterity ~/site/trunk/content/
lucene.net/docs/version for everyone to view them
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
@Robert,
I believe the overwhelming consensus on the mailing list vote was to
move
to
.NET 4.0 and drop support for previous versions.
I'll take care of build
The line before had volatile in it..
private volatile System.IO.StreamWriter infoStream;
From: geobmx...@hotmail.com
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:14:41 -0700
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Before I go
-
From: Michael Herndon
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:30 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
@Robert,
I believe the overwhelming consensus on the mailing list vote was to
move
to
.NET 4.0 and drop
?
CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
From: casper...@caspershouse.com
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:58:42 -0400
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Prescott,
You really don't need to do that; reads and writes of reference fields are
guaranteed
This is what I thought - is that good by everyone?
Sent from my Windows Phone
-Original Message-
From: Troy Howard
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:36 AM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
I thought
-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
@Robert,
I believe the overwhelming consensus on the mailing list vote was to move
to
.NET 4.0 and drop support for previous versions.
I'll take care of build scripts issue while they being refactored into
smaller chunks
: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
@Robert,
I believe the overwhelming consensus on the mailing list vote was to
move
to
.NET 4.0 and drop support for previous versions.
I'll take care of build scripts issue while they being refactored into
smaller chunks this week.
@Troy, Agreed.
On Wed, Sep
, 2011 10:40 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
@all,
I updated the build scripts to increase it's granularity.
https://cwiki.apache.org/LUCENENET/build-system-scripts.html
Similarity was include, though are there any tests for this project ?
Some
cases.
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Robert Jordan [mailto:robe...@gmx.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:09 PM
To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
On 20.09.2011 23:48, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Hey all seems like we are set with 2.9.4
: Robert Jordan [mailto:robe...@gmx.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:16 AM
To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Hi Digy,
On 21.09.2011 23:38, Digy wrote:
@Robert
Also, the fix for [LUCENENET-358] is basically making Lucene.Net.dll a
.NET 4.0-only
-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Hi Digy,
On 21.09.2011 23:38, Digy wrote:
@Robert
Also, the fix for [LUCENENET-358] is basically making Lucene.Net.dll a
.NET 4.0-only assembly:
There is a commented part at the end of the CloseableThreadLocal which may
seem familiar to you :)
Indeed
On 20.09.2011 23:48, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Hey all seems like we are set with 2.9.4? Feedback has been positive and its
been quiet. Do we feel ready to vote for a new release?
I don't know if the build infrastructure is part of the
release. If yes, then there is an open issue:
Contrib
@Robert,
I believe the overwhelming consensus on the mailing list vote was to move to
.NET 4.0 and drop support for previous versions.
I'll take care of build scripts issue while they being refactored into
smaller chunks this week.
@Troy, Agreed.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Robert Jordan
I thought this was after 2.9.4
Sent from my Windows Phone
-Original Message-
From: Michael Herndon
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:30 AM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
@Robert,
I believe
, September 21, 2011 8:30 AM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
@Robert,
I believe the overwhelming consensus on the mailing list vote was to move
to
.NET 4.0 and drop support for previous versions.
I'll take care
:
I thought this was after 2.9.4
Sent from my Windows Phone
-Original Message-
From: Michael Herndon
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:30 AM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
@Robert,
I believe
: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
On 20.09.2011 23:48, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Hey all seems like we are set with 2.9.4? Feedback has been positive and
its been quiet. Do we feel ready to vote for a new release?
I don't know if the build infrastructure is part of the
release. If yes, then there is an open issue
On 22.09.2011 00:16, Robert Jordan wrote:
Hi Digy,
On 21.09.2011 23:38, Digy wrote:
@Robert
Also, the fix for [LUCENENET-358] is basically making Lucene.Net.dll a
.NET 4.0-only assembly:
There is a commented part at the end of the CloseableThreadLocal which
may
seem familiar to you :)
I think, there was a sync problem between our eMails :(
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Robert Jordan [mailto:robe...@gmx.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:22 AM
To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
On 22.09.2011 00:16, Robert Jordan wrote:
Hi
Big OK from our end
Sorry to be nagging on this again, but it would be very nice if you could
incorporate https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-431 in 2.9.4 as
well. It is one of those bugfixes that really fix a lot more than they can
possible break, so I hope this will justify a small
We should probably fix the ClsCompliance warnings if they have not already
been fixed
We will have some issues with this - some are marked volatile - which basically
have to be a non-CLS compliant type (as far as my research is finding) Anyone
have thoughts? I went through and
We have a folder /trunk/docs, shouldn't this be the place for that?
We should have a live site for the documentation that people can browse,
similar to the parent project's site.
http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_4_0/api/all/index.html. It makes it the
documentation more accessible.
The rub is
Could we store sandcastle docs as a single zip/chm?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote:
At one time I had a SVN server set up at work that had a post-commit
hook set up that would generate a static HTML site from the XML doc
files using Sandcastle. So..
Why would we want to do that?
Under the /site/docs directory, they need to be served up as loose HTML...
IMO the XML files shouldn't be checked into SVN because they are
auto-generated. The same goes for Sandcastle files.. However, in the
release packages, I think we should include the XML files
I'm with you on checking in the static files into ~/site/doc/version
that would be pretty easy to automate from jenkins msbuild if we can get
the docs into static html.
I currently just push all assemblies, help files, xml docs into ~/trunk/bin
on the user's local once the scripts finish
We should probably fix the ClsCompliance warnings if they have not already
been fixed find a place to put the generated documentation.
I remember someone mentioning he/she was unable to access a class from
VB.NET. The class had public fields properties with the same names but
different casing.
...@hotmail.comwrote:
Thanks Itamar!
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:22:59 +0300
From: ita...@code972.com
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
We have been running some extensive tests 30hrs now against the 2.9.4
branch
Thanks Itamar!
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:22:59 +0300
From: ita...@code972.com
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
We have been running some extensive tests 30hrs now against the 2.9.4
branch, and did not detect any
it in I assume because that will be our next official
release.
Sent from my Windows Phone
-Original Message-
From: Michael Herndon
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:12 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
What version is going to make
Good news. Thanks Itamar.
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 8:23 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
We have been running
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 23:14:37 +0300
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
+1 for an official release.
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 9:22 PM
@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Not a problem, we will test RavenDB on a separate branch, also for
potential
memory leaks
Digy, can you make sure the github mirror contains an updated 2.9.4
tag
I
can pull from, which includes the latest ThreadLocal fix
To: 'lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org'
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Not bad idea, but I would prefer community's feedback instead of
testing
against all projects using Lucene.Net
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Matt Warren [mailto:mattd...@gmail.com
-net-dev@lucene.apache.org'
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Not bad idea, but I would prefer community's feedback instead of
testing
against all projects using Lucene.Net
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Matt Warren [mailto:mattd...@gmail.com]
Sent
2.9.4 would make it in I assume because that will be our next official release.
Sent from my Windows Phone
-Original Message-
From: Michael Herndon
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:12 AM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
What version is going
.
Thanks,
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:34 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Not a problem, we will test RavenDB
doesn't seem
to resolve the issue brought up
Thanks,
~P
From: digyd...@gmail.com
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 23:14:37 +0300
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
+1 for an official release.
DIGY
-Original Message
...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com]
On
Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:34 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Not a problem, we will test RavenDB on a separate branch, also for
potential
memory leaks
Thanks,
~P
From: digyd...@gmail.com
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 23:14:37 +0300
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
+1 for an official release.
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Prescott Nasser
On 2011-09-07, Michael Herndon wrote:
Stefan Bodewig might still be away
He is back ;-)
and I think we need his vote on the release when the time
comes. (correct me, because I could be uber wrong).
For the release you need three +1s by Incubator PMC members. After
voting here a second vote
+1 for an official release.
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 9:22 PM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Hey All,
How do people feel about
To avoid misunderstanding...
Community==all Lucene.Net users
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 11:46 PM
To: 'lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org'
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Not bad idea, but I would prefer community's
assume issues are shaken out and things are
somewhat vetted.
~P
From: digyd...@gmail.com
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 00:48:02 +0300
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
To avoid misunderstanding...
Community==all
To avoid misunderstanding...
Community==all Lucene.Net users
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 11:46 PM
To: 'lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org'
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Not bad idea, but I would prefer
Not bad idea, but I would prefer community's feedback instead of testing
against all projects using Lucene.Net
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Matt Warren [mailto:mattd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 11:09 PM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net
56 matches
Mail list logo
