lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1
Date Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:56:17 GMT
+1

(I already +1'd on the other thread, too).

Mike

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>
>> Sorry,
>>
>> I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to "maybe
>> start one". But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask
>> again, an I will start the vote for now.
>>
>>
>> ============================================================================
>> Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of
>> Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org.
>>
>> You can find the artifacts here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/<http://people.apache.org/%7Euschindler/staging-area/>
>>
>> This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on
>> p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms
>> to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build,
>> I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0).
>>
>> All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was
>> originally built by Mike McCandless).
>>
>> ============================================================================
>>
>> What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me):
>>
>> If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache
>> archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other
>> contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the
>> same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for
>> 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not
>> apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this
>> maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary
>> distrib.
>>
>> What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is
>> different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier
>> mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last
>> changed file.
>>
>> So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my
>> key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder.
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>> -----
>> Uwe Schindler
>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_lucene@fucit.org]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
>> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and
>> > 2.9
>> >
>> >
>> > : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for
>> > : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven
>> > reposititory?
>> >
>> > It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before
>> > publishing those jars to maven.  2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on
>> and
>> > released -- including all of the source code in them.
>> >
>> > The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a
>> > vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ...
>> considering
>> > the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick.
>> >
>> > :
>> > : > I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is
>> > top-
>> > : > level
>> > : > version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter:
>> > : >
>> > : > http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/<http://people.apache.org/%7Euschindler/staging-area/>
>> > : >
>> > : > I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got
>> > votes
>> > : > (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures.
>> > : >
>> > : > By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts
>> > : > svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of
>> > the
>> > : > last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn
>> > version,
>> > : > even
>> > : > that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all,
>> but
>> > not
>> > : > very nice.
>> > : >
>> > : > Maybe we should change build.xml to call "svnversion -c" in future,
>> to
>> > get
>> > : > the real number.
>> > : >
>> > : > Uwe
>> > : >
>> > : > -----
>> > : > Uwe Schindler
>> > : > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>> > : > http://www.thetaphi.de
>> > : > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>> > : >
>> > : >
>> > : > > -----Original Message-----
>> > : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> > : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
>> > : > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > : > > Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0
and
>> > 2.9
>> > : > >
>> > : > > I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then we
>> > could
>> > : > > vote to release both of them pretty quickly.  I think that should
>> be
>> > : > easy
>> > : > > to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and
the
>> > : > > signatures.
>> > : > >
>> > : > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
>> > : > >
>> > : > > > hi folks,
>> > : > > > The maven artifacts for fast-vector-highlighter have never
been
>> > pushed
>> > : > > > since it was released because there were no pom.xml.template
>> > inside
>> > : > > > the module. I added a pom file a day ago in the context of
>> > : > > > LUCENE-2107. I already talked to uwe and grant how to deal
with
>> > this
>> > : > > > issues and if we should push the artifact for Lucene 2.9 /
3.0.
>> > Since
>> > : > > > this is only a metadata file we could consider rebuilding the
>> > : > > > artefacts and publish them for those releases. I can not remember
>> > that
>> > : > > > anything like that happened before, so we should discuss how
to
>> > deal
>> > : > > > with this situation and if we should wait until 3.1.
>> > : > > >
>> > : > > > simon
>> > : > > >
>> > : > > >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > ---
>> > : > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > : > > >
>> > : > >
>> > : > >
>> > : > >
>> > : > >
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > -
>> > : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > : > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > : >
>> > : >
>> > : >
>> > : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > : > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > :
>> > :
>> > :
>> > : ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > : To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > : For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > :
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -Hoss
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
>

Mime
View raw message