lucene-pylucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: preparing for a PyLucene release
Date Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:02:50 GMT

I think this is a good idea!

There were discussions late last year to do a 2.9 release for Lucene,  
but realistically
it's probably  a ways out still.

The Lucene java release checklist might be a good place to check for  
the "typical" things:

Alot of that is specific to Lucene java, but a good amount is generic  
and should be helpful.

I'd recommend keeping notes of what you did and then posting to the  

Once you have a release candidate posted, then you should call for a  
vote; you
should definitely encourage anyone & everyone to test/vote (not just  
PMC members).


Andi Vajda wrote:

> Hi,
> Apart from the JIRA project (issue INFRA-1861) which seems stuck,  
> the transition for PyLucene from OSAF to Apache is now complete.
> Historically, PyLucene has had official releases closely tracking  
> Java Lucene's. At the moment, it doesn't appear that Java Lucene is  
> preparing for a release anytime soon.
> I'd like to propose creating an offical Apache PyLucene source release
> now instead of waiting for the next Java Lucene release for the  
> following purposes:
>  - practising the process (new to me)
>  - getting a release "out there" for people looking for it under the
>    not-yet-created 'releases' menu under 'resources'
>  - announcing the move to a larger audience such as Freshmeat
> From a functionality standpoint, this release would still be built  
> around Java Lucene 2.4.0 but would include the latest bug fixes  
> since the last release made at OSAF. I propose calling this release  
> PyLucene-2.4.0-3.
> I read the documents at [1] and [2] and I'm ready to kick-off the  
> process.
> In particular, I fixed the NOTICE and LICENSE files again.
> At what time in that process do I need a vote from the Lucene PMC ?
> Is there anything else required besides the vote and what's  
> described at [1] and [2] ?
> Andi..
> [1]
> [2]

View raw message