lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doron Cohen <cdor...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.2.0
Date Mon, 30 May 2011 12:21:44 GMT
Hi,

I am in favor of not waiting for last minute changes and think we should
release this RC if it has no major problems.

Here is what I have:

1) In lucene tar-gz format is file.tar.gz while in solr it is file.tgz.
Not a blocker but I think we would like them to be the same in the future?

2) That foo.txt - it is in the two binary files (not in the source one) - I
think it is not a show stopper - either remove it manually, or perhaps, to
make sure the released packs are the ones voted on, just note about it. If
removed manually I suggest at least one additional review of the packs and
their new check sums.

3) Lucene src pack contains SNOWBALL-LICENSE.txt which is not in either of
the two binary packages, is this a problem?

4) Lucene: lucene/contrib/benchmark/.rsync-filter is only in the source pack
(and in SVN), I was not aware of this file, though it was added long ago in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-848?focusedCommentId=12491404&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-12491404
Not a blocker for this RC, just interesting to note.

5) running 'ant clean' (or any target) from tarsrc/lucene-3.2.0 fails due to
dependency in ../common-build.xml.
I don't recall what was the decision about this in previous release (3.1) -
so not sure, is this a major problem, that the source pack is actually not
easily runnable? (I think it is, but again, almost sure this was already
discussed).

So I copied top common-build.xml from r1128276 (I gather this is the source
for this release, although it was not stated here, but at least this is what
the manifest for one of the lucene jars says). With this I am able to run
the tests, and all passed (XP).

At compiling there are various warning printed, I think it would be more
assuring for downloaders if the build runs without warning. These warnings
are not a stopper.

6) checked the md5 and sha1 signatures - ok for all 6 packs (3 solr, 3
lucene).

I would like to know what others think about points 3 and 5 above before I
vote on this RC.

Doron

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> Please vote to release the artifacts at:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/lucene_solr_320/rc1/
>
> as Lucene 3.2.0 and Solr 3.2.0.
>
> Mike
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message