lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Busch <>
Subject Re: Finishing Lucene 2.9
Date Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:26:34 GMT
On 8/19/09 11:43 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Grant Ingersoll<> 
>> wrote:
>>> the RM should follow the release procedure as specified.
>> Wiki documents are normally not official - anyone can modify them, and
>> people have been with little/no discussion.  I'll admit that I can't
>> always follow java-dev, so I may have missed a vote to codify/upgrade
>> this release guideline as an official process that must be followed.
>> At least I know that's not the case in Solr-land though, and I've
>> updated the wiki to reflect that.
> I find it scary to think that one release might contain Maven 
> artifacts, for instance, while another, done by a different person, 
> might not, simply b/c the RM doesn't feel like it.  I don't agree 
> here, and I don't agree for Solr.  Stable RM is as important as 
> backward compatibility, if not more so.

+1. I too think that the RM should follow the guidelines.


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

View raw message