On 2011-02-19, Digy wrote:
I think there is a misunderstanding about the release. In Apache way, a
release is a *signed* binary release(compiled version).
Uhm no.
Apache releases are OpenPGP signed bundles of source code (zip or tar.gz
doesn't matter).
Any binary distribution you create is
On 2011-02-19, Troy Howard wrote:
Disclaimer: Troy's Personal Opinions (tm) which may be controversial,
will be found below
Regarding the idea of 'feature branches', I guess I should make it
clear that I personally don't agree with this workflow in SVN.
This is completely appropriate for
I agree with DIGY.
Although why wait until after the official release?
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010
, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since
v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to
support
-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since
v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to
support older versions of VS. But after having
: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Author: pnasser
Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011
New Revision: 1072121
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev
Log: (empty)
Added:
incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
- copied from r1069573, incubator
-Original Message-
From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/
lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since
v2.0
@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
I agree with DIGY.
Although why wait until after the official release?
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
To: lucene-net-dev
:39 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Sergey Mirvoda
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a
new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the
changes
?
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/
lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't
[mailto:ser...@mirvoda.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:56 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Why with 2.0 and not with 4.0 targeting 2.0?
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Wyatt Barnett
wyatt.barn
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Why with 2.0 and not with 4.0 targeting 2.0?
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Wyatt Barnett
wyatt.barn...@gmail.comwrote:
For folks who badly need to compile it, why not just add
a release would just be the src rolled up and packaged.
From: thowar...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:38:47 -0800
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
CC: ser...@mirvoda.com
.
From: thowar...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:38:47 -0800
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/
lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
CC: ser...@mirvoda.com
It's a common practice for developers to create
14 matches
Mail list logo
