Hi,
First of all thank you for the new release 2.9.4. That makes me really
happy.
However, I noted that current binaries are build for .Net 4.0 framework
only, which is very inconvenient.
The reason is we have a hard requirement to use .Net3.5sp1.
We were going to build it manually as usual, but
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
Hey All,
I'm happy to announce that we've released Lucene.Net 2.9.4. Check out the
download page (http://incubator.apache.org/lucene.net/download.html) to get
links to the source or binary files
~Prescott
On 2011-12-01, Prescott Nasser wrote:
I'm happy to announce that we've released Lucene.Net 2.9.4.
Congratulations all.
It may be a good idea to flesh this out a bit with details of what has
changed and sending an announcement to announce@apache as well (you must
use your @apache.org address
-...@incubator.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Hey All,
I'm happy to announce that we've released Lucene.Net 2.9.4. Check out the
download page (http://incubator.apache.org/lucene.net/download.html) to get
links to the source or binary files
-...@incubator.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Importance: Low
Hey All,
I'm happy to announce that we've released Lucene.Net 2.9.4. Check out the
download page (http://incubator.apache.org/lucene.net/download.html) to get
links to the source or binary
Alright, we've passed the general voting gauntlet. Steps I see are:
1. Move the artifacts to the distribution place (not sure where or how yet)
2. NuGet for those who want it (if anyone is familiar with this, I have only
used Nuget to get packages, not sure how to submit)
3. Update the
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
-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
+1 for wiki checklist ticket for for build scripts to bundle all this
stuff for you.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.comwrote:
Damn It - knew i was missing
I've updated the files - same location
~P
From: bode...@apache.org
To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:34:16 +0100
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On 2011-11-18, Prescott
On 2011-11-20, Prescott Nasser wrote:
I've updated the files - same location
Thanks a lot!
Hashes and sigs are good. All required legal files are in place. src
zip still matches the tag (so I didn't have to re-run RAT)
+1
Stefan
] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
So, I haven't looked at the artifacts, but I was just looking over the
source code, and noticed something that we should probably discuss
before voting on the artifacts.
The files in Contrib\Analyzers are nowhere near in sync with 2.9.4
16:39:30 -0400
From: mhern...@wickedsoftware.net
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
@Troy,
Now I don't feel as bad for my long e-mails. ;)
-build scripts
Except for building on mono or running NCover
I got lastest - so hopefully not :)
I think I'd cry a little bit if it got wiped.
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 17:55:05 -0800
From: currens.ch...@gmail.com
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4
On 2011-11-18, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Third time is the charm:
I'm afraid it is not.
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/
Sigs and hashes are good. Source zip and tag match except for the
build/lib/doc dirs that are only inside the tag and which I agree
: 11/19/2011 10:34 PM
To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache-Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating-RC3
On 2011-11-18, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Third time is the charm:
I'm afraid it is not.
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Third time is the charm:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC3/
I'll keep it open for 72 hours or so, then if all goes well, I'll make a vote
to the general@incubator
Thanks everyone for their help getting to this point.
~Prescott
+1
Is there an estimate when 2/9/4 will be available on NuGet? We have been using
our own compiled version in order make use of the
Lucene.Net.Analysis.CJK.CJKAnalyzer since that is not available in the NuGet
version of Contrib.
Thanks,
Ivan
Ivan von Nagy | senior software engineer
(o)
We're currently working on the release of 2.9.4, and its during out release
phase that we generate the NuGet package. There was a vote to release it a
week or so ago, but some last minute changes postponed it. I'm not
personally working with the other committers who are packaging the release
for
nothing definite. we have a nuget account setup, a way to package the files
as nupkg.
However the packages names are taken by others who jumped the gun and
generated nuget packages under Lucene Lucene.Net, the latter being the
ideal main package that the we would want to use.
We also need to
: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubator-RC2 Documentation
I don't understand why we have the rendered html in the docs. I don't
mind
having the .chm rendered and put in the repo, but the entire HTML
documentation spans 8,000 files and over 100mb. The CHM comes in at
around
15mb.
I
it to the website, so we have browsable
documentation
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 19:26:23 -0800
From: currens.ch...@gmail.com
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubator-RC2 Documentation
I don't understand why we
I don't understand why we have the rendered html in the docs. I don't mind
having the .chm rendered and put in the repo, but the entire HTML
documentation spans 8,000 files and over 100mb. The CHM comes in at around
15mb.
I don't think it's necessary to have both in the repo, but if the
My intention is to link it to the website, so we have browsable documentation
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 19:26:23 -0800
From: currens.ch...@gmail.com
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubator-RC2
@Stefan.
I wouldn't worry about the taking the blame, you've done plenty to help out
and there is no way to catch everything. We'll learn as we go.
As svnpub is the only option and since we can't run the binary version that
uses ASP.NET, we'll need to probably take your suggestion commit the
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
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
+1
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net
wrote:
+1
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2011-11-02, Prescott Nasser wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC2/
As usual
On 2011-11-02, Prescott Nasser wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC2/
As usual, no technical opinion at all, I leave that to others.
Sigs and hashes look good. NOTICE and LICENSE are fine.
RAT is almost happy, we should add license headers to
src/contrib
Alright vote take 2. Thanks to everyone who helped me get all the pieces in
order:
Artifacts are located here:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC2/
/lib was left out of the src files because I think we are unclear if we can do
that per licensing
/docs
On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Artifacts are located here:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
Is there a tag in svn that is supposed to correspond to them? My guess
is http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/.
But then I find
To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:00:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Artifacts are located here:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1
On 2011-10-31, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
The only other test I'd perform was running RAT which I'll do shortly
and post the results here.
The binary look good, but
http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/lucene.net/src.rat.txt
Way too many files without license headers. I can and will provide a
patch
, 31 Oct 2011 07:10:46 +0100
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
On 2011-10-31, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
The only other test I'd perform was running RAT which I'll do shortly
and post the results here.
The binary look good, but
http://people.apache.org
it in there.
From: bode...@apache.org
To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:00:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Artifacts are located here:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net
On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Stefan - doc folder was left out intentionally for this reason.
OK. I wonder whether it should be moved out of trunk.
Also the Lib folder, I left out, I thought it was additional dll's
that weren't part of Lucene that others might need. I can put that
: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:00:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Artifacts are located here:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
Is there a tag in svn that is supposed
they are also using Hudkins)?
So all that said, I think there's more work to be done and I'm -1 for
these artifacts.
Thanks,
Troy
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Artifacts are located here:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4
If no one else beats me to it, I can probably have it in trunk by wednesday.
- Michael
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
I have to re tag the trunk because of the additional bug fix I put in
this evening. So
, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote:
Artifacts are located here:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
If the vote passes here, I will move the artifacts to staging and call a vote
on the general incubator mailing list
Please verify the release and cast
-...@incubator.apache.org
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:00:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
On 2011-10-31, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Artifacts are located here:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
Is there a tag in svn
://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/hopefully
I've done this right, once you guys think it looks good, I'd like
to call a vote to release this
~Prescott
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
Artifacts are located here:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net/2.9.4-incubating-RC1/
If the vote passes here, I will move the artifacts to staging and call a vote
on the general incubator mailing list
Please verify the release and cast your vote. The vote will be open for 72
+1
From: geobmx...@hotmail.com
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:08:32 -0700
Subject: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net-2.9.4-incubating
Artifacts are located here:
http://people.apache.org/~pnasser/Lucene.Net
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
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?
-Prescott
Sent from my Windows Phone
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
: [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 + the
strongly
signed
: [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 + the
strongly
signed
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
] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
Lucene.Net 2.9.4
All,
Please cast your votes regarding the topic of .Net Framework support.
The question on the table is:
Should Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4 be the last release which supports the
.Net 2.0 Framework?
Some options
-...@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+1
PS: If you are supporting .NET 3.5 then you get .NET 2.0 support anyway, you
just have to bin-deploy the .NET 3.5 dependencies (System.Core
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
