Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 57607 invoked from network); 18 May 2006 20:28:47 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 May 2006 20:28:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 12306 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2006 20:28:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 12267 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2006 20:28:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 12256 invoked by uid 99); 18 May 2006 20:28:44 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 13:28:44 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 68.142.206.239 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of dmsmith555@gmail.com) Received: from [68.142.206.239] (HELO smtp106.plus.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.206.239) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 13:28:43 -0700 Received: (qmail 82325 invoked from network); 18 May 2006 20:28:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.253?) (dmsmith555@67.39.27.222 with plain) by smtp106.plus.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 May 2006 20:28:21 -0000 Message-ID: <446CD8E5.8040207@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 16:28:21 -0400 From: DM Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Lucene 2.0 References: <446C7463.5020906@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Chris Hostetter wrote: > : Could someone enumerate what needs to be done before 2.0 is released. > : From following this thread, it was stated that 2.0 was 1.9 with > : deprecations removed. > : Recently it appears to be becoming much more than that. > > I believe Doug's suggestion was to hold off just long enough to fix any > egregious bugs, or apply any "safe" patches for bugs that have allready > been fixed but not yet applied. > > the "2.0 is the same as 1.9 but with deprecations removed" policy was > about features, but if there are bugs that can be fixed easily, let's fix > them. > > at the monent, there are two Jira issues with a "Fix" version of 2.0 still > unresolved: LUCENE-556 and LUCENE-546 .. presumably, unless someone marks > any other bugs as "Fix for 2.0" 2.0 can be released once those bugs have > been fixed, or sooner if it's decided that nbo one has the time to fix > those (or the existing patches aren't safe to apply hastily) > Both of these are unassigned. 546 has an attached patch. 556 mentions a work around. Well, I am looking forward to someone else taking this on;) and getting 2.0 out the door! > > ...or at least, that's the way i udnerstand it ... i'm no policy maker. > > > -Hoss I think this is in keeping with what was said here. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org