Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9

Simon Willnauer
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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9

Grant Ingersoll-2
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: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9

Simon Willnauer
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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.
Yep - that might be the best solution as it does not change code
though. Whoever volunteers to do so has to checkout the same revision
to make sure it is the same code while I doubt that we had changes in
fast-vector-highlighter in the branch. -- Doh! no change in 3.0 branch
but in 2.9.

simon

>
> 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: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9

Uwe Schindler
I will regenerate both artifacts and publish in my people.a.o home (2.9.1
and 3.0, but not 2.9.0).

Also 2.9.0? That’s not what you want!

Uwe

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [hidden email]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Willnauer [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:34 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> Yep - that might be the best solution as it does not change code
> though. Whoever volunteers to do so has to checkout the same revision
> to make sure it is the same code while I doubt that we had changes in
> fast-vector-highlighter in the branch. -- Doh! no change in 3.0 branch
> but in 2.9.
>
> simon
> >
> > 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: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9

Uwe Schindler
In reply to this post by Grant Ingersoll-2
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/

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: [hidden email]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9

Simon Willnauer
Uwe, the signatures are fine though. We should move forward and open a
vote for the artifacts. Grant, are you going to do this?

simon

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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/
>
> 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: [hidden email]
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> 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: [hidden email]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

(NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9

Uwe Schindler
In reply to this post by Uwe Schindler
Hi,

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?

> 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/
>
> 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: [hidden email]
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9

hossman

: 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/
: >
: > 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: [hidden email]
: >
: >
: > > -----Original Message-----
: > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
: > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
: > > To: [hidden email]
: > > 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: [hidden email]
: > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
: > > >
: > >
: > >
: > >
: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
: > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
: >
: >
: >
: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
: > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
:
:
:
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
: For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
:



-Hoss


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9

Michael McCandless-2
In reply to this post by Uwe Schindler
Sorry didn't realize we were voting here -- next time put VOTE in there ;)

+1

I spot checked a couple of the sigs.

Mike

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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?
>
>> 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/
>>
>> 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: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
>> > To: [hidden email]
>> > 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: [hidden email]
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1

Uwe Schindler
In reply to this post by hossman
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/

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: [hidden email]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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/
> : >
> : > 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: [hidden email]
> : >
> : >
> : > > -----Original Message-----
> : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
> : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
> : > > To: [hidden email]
> : > > 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: [hidden email]
> : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> : > > >
> : > >
> : > >
> : > >
> : > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> : > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> :
> :
> :
> : ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> : For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> :
>
>
>
> -Hoss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1

Michael McCandless-2
+1

Mike

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> 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/
>
> 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: [hidden email]
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> 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/
>> : >
>> : > 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: [hidden email]
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > > -----Original Message-----
>> : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
>> : > > To: [hidden email]
>> : > > 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: [hidden email]
>> : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> : > > >
>> : > >
>> : > >
>> : > >
>> : > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> : > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> :
>> :
>> :
>> : ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> : For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> -Hoss
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1

Simon Willnauer
+1 form none PMC

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Michael McCandless
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> 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/
>>
>> 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: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> 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/
>>> : >
>>> : > 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: [hidden email]
>>> : >
>>> : >
>>> : > > -----Original Message-----
>>> : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
>>> : > > To: [hidden email]
>>> : > > 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: [hidden email]
>>> : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> : > > >
>>> : > >
>>> : > >
>>> : > >
>>> : > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> : > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> : >
>>> : >
>>> : >
>>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> :
>>> :
>>> :
>>> : ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> : To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> : For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Hoss
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1

Uwe Schindler
In reply to this post by Uwe Schindler
I got 3 binding votes from Grant, Mike, and Ted (and one from Simon, who was
a big help on Sunday evening when I created the artifacts), so I push the
maven artifacts onto the rsync repo in few minutes.

Thanks!

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [hidden email]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and
> 2.9.1
>
> 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/
>
> 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: [hidden email]
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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/
> > : >
> > : > 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: [hidden email]
> > : >
> > : >
> > : > > -----Original Message-----
> > : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
> > : > > To: [hidden email]
> > : > > 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: [hidden email]
> > : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > : > > >
> > : > >
> > : > >
> > : > >
> > : > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -
> > : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > : > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > : >
> > : >
> > : >
> > : > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > : > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > :
> > :
> > :
> > : ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > : To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > : For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > :
> >
> >
> >
> > -Hoss
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1

Uwe Schindler
Hi all,

The missing maven artifacts for the fast-vector-highlighter contrib of
Lucene Java in version 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 are now available at:

http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/
http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/

Uwe

-----
Uwe Schindler
[hidden email]
Apache Lucene Java Committer
Bremen, Germany
http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/

> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:41 PM
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0
> and 2.9.1
>
> I got 3 binding votes from Grant, Mike, and Ted (and one from Simon, who
> was
> a big help on Sunday evening when I created the artifacts), so I push the
> maven artifacts onto the rsync repo in few minutes.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: [hidden email]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and
> > 2.9.1
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > 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: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > 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/
> > > : >
> > > : > 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: [hidden email]
> > > : >
> > > : >
> > > : > > -----Original Message-----
> > > : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
> > > : > > To: [hidden email]
> > > : > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-
> [hidden email]
> > > : > > >
> > > : > >
> > > : > >
> > > : > >
> > > : > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > --
> > > -
> > > : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > : > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > : >
> > > : >
> > > : >
> > > : > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -
> > > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > : > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > :
> > > :
> > > :
> > > : --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > > : To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > : For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > :
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Hoss
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1

Simon Willnauer
nice - I closed the issue.
thanks uwe

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The missing maven artifacts for the fast-vector-highlighter contrib of
> Lucene Java in version 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 are now available at:
>
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/
> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/
>
> Uwe
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> [hidden email]
> Apache Lucene Java Committer
> Bremen, Germany
> http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/
>
>> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:41 PM
>> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0
>> and 2.9.1
>>
>> I got 3 binding votes from Grant, Mike, and Ted (and one from Simon, who
>> was
>> a big help on Sunday evening when I created the artifacts), so I push the
>> maven artifacts onto the rsync repo in few minutes.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -----
>> Uwe Schindler
>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>> eMail: [hidden email]
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM
>> > To: [hidden email]
>> > Subject: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and
>> > 2.9.1
>> >
>> > 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/
>> >
>> > 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: [hidden email]
>> >
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM
>> > > To: [hidden email]
>> > > 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/
>> > > : >
>> > > : > 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: [hidden email]
>> > > : >
>> > > : >
>> > > : > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > : > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> > > : > > Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM
>> > > : > > To: [hidden email]
>> > > : > > 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: [hidden email]
>> > > : > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-
>> [hidden email]
>> > > : > > >
>> > > : > >
>> > > : > >
>> > > : > >
>> > > : > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> > --
>> > > -
>> > > : > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > > : > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > > : >
>> > > : >
>> > > : >
>> > > : > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> > -
>> > > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > > : > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > > :
>> > > :
>> > > :
>> > > : --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> > > : To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > > : For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > > :
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -Hoss
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]