lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <>
Subject Re: releases
Date Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:57:50 GMT

----- Original Message ----
From: Steven Parkes <>

And an observation: shouldn't everything currently in Resolved have a
FVs that includes 2.1? I can see optionally adding 2.0.1, too, but since

OG: I never specify FV.  I bet you will see most issues in Resolved state have no FV.

it's already committed to trunk, it's obviously planned to be fixed in 2.1, right?

OG: right.  We don't know when 2.1 will happen, we don't know wha exactly will be in it, but
we do know there will be 2.1.

What about adding a Committed field? Looking at the docs, it should be
possible. I'm actually more interested in that field then I am in FVs,
if not simply because it's a lot less ambiguous and subjective. I don't
need to know the release process to interpret it.

OG: what would that be used for?  Personally, I'm for not going crazy with additions of a
bunch of new fields - the more I have to think while working with JIRA, the more I'm going
to avoid it. :)

I think it could facilitate some things, should we ever want to. I
wonder how the RM handles making patch releases. If it were me, tasked

OG: Ronald McDonald?  I think the only person who actually rolled a release around here is
Doug.  The rest of us are just theorizing.... but somebody's got to do that.

with making a 2.0.1 release (should that be decided) and it was decided
to have a lot of the patches in, my to-do list would be all those issues
that have FV with 2.0.1 and did not have Committed with 2.0.1. Then I'd
update the Jira issues as I did the merges. If it's really a simple
release, it might be overkill but as soon as it gets a little
complicated, it seems like the tracking would be really handy.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message