lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.1
Date Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:14:42 GMT

: Please vote to release the artifacts at
: http://people.apache.org/~yonik/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.1RC2

-0

I can't in good conscience vote for these artifacts.

For the most part, there only only a few minor hicups -- but the big 
blocker (in my opinion) is that since RC1, dev-tools has been removed from 
the solr src packages and this causes the top level build.xml (and 
instructions for IDE users in the top level README.txt file) to be broken.

My detailed notes below...

##########################
### apache-solr-3.1.0-src.tgz

dev-tools isn't in here -- this totally boggles my mind, particularly 
since there was a deliberate and concious switch to make the source 
releases match what you get when doing an "svn export"

because dev-tools is missing, 3 of the top level ant targets advertised 
using "ant -p" don't work; including 'ant idea' and 'ant eclipse' which 
are also explicitly mentioned in the top level README.txt as how people 
using those IDEs should get started developing the code.

This seems like a major issue to me.   

we're setting ourselves up to make the release look completely broken 
right out of the gate for anyone using one of those IDEs.

Ask about this on IRC.  yonik & ryan indicated that a couple of folks had 
said they would veto any release with dev-tools in it because that stuff 
is suppose to be "unsupported" ... this makes no sense to me as we have 
lots of places in the code base where things are documented as being 
experimental, subject to change, and/or for developer use only.  i don't 
relaly see how dev-tools should be any different.

if there is really such violent oposition to including dev-tools in src 
releases, then the top level build.xml should not depend on it, and the 
top level README.txt should not refer to it (except maybe with something 
like "people interested in hacking on the src should use svn which 
includes some unofficial 'dev-tools'"
---

Now that the src packages are driven by svn exports, more files exist then 
were in RC1 and some of the changes we made to the solr/README.txt based 
on the earlier release candidates are missleading.  

In particular a lot of things are listed as being in the "docs" directory 
of a binary distribution, but those files *do* exist in the src packages 
-- if you look in the "site" directory.  This seems silly, but at no point 
is the README.txt factually incorrect, so I guess it's not a big enough 
deal to worry about.

---

running all tests, running the example, and building the javadocs all 
worked fine.

##########################
### apache-solr-3.1.0.tgz

docs look good, basic example usage works fine.

##########################
### apache-solr-3.1.0.zip

Diffing the contents of apache-solr-3.1.0.tgz with apache-solr-3.1.0.zip 
(using "diff --ignore-all-space --strip-trailing-cr -r") turned up a quite 
a fiew instances where the CRLF fixing in build.xml seems to have 
corrupted some non-ascii characters in a few files....

 contrib/dataimporthandler/lib/activation-LICENSE.txt 
 contrib/dataimporthandler/lib/mail-LICENSE.txt
 docs/skin/CommonMessages_de.xml
 docs/skin/CommonMessages_es.xml
 docs/skin/CommonMessages_fr.xml
 example/solr/conf/velocity/facet_dates.vm

...but these changes don't seem to have substantively harmed the files.

##########################
### lucene-3.1.0-src.tar.gz

tests and javadocs worked fine.

##########################
### lucene-3.1.0.tar.gz

docs look good, demo runs fine.

##########################
### lucene-3.1.0.zip

no differences found with lucene-3.1.0.tar.gz





-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message