Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <002301cb01c9$4a0e5a60$de2b0f20$@thetaphi.de>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1006011105530.23503@radix.cryptio.net>
	<002301cb01c9$4a0e5a60$de2b0f20$@thetaphi.de>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:44:37 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimNNM_W3BZEf-PWW0lmXvKE0WTNUr1fHney6EBW@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9.3 ? ( blocking Solr 1.4.1 ? ? ? )
From: Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1 for end-of-day Thu freeze -- I'll finish mine by then.

But I think for trivial fixes for kinda bad bugs (LUCENE-2311 -- real
bad: mergedSegmentWarner is basically unusable; LUCENE-2356) we should
make an exception (allow them into 2.9.3)?  I've already got the patch
up for 2311; I'll do 2356 shortly.

Mike

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am quite fine with doing a 2.9.3 / 3.0.2 release as soon as possible, b=
ut
> I don't like to force any reopened issues into this release. I have no
> problem with doing this in parallel to the Solr 1.4.1 Release. I don't th=
ink
> that it is a good idea, to now reopen a lot of issues, just to get them i=
nto
> 2.9.3 / 3.0.2:
>
> My idea was, to release the current branches as the artifacts for this
> release. Both branches are stable and contain very qualitative branches.
> They contain very stable patches and a release should be very unproblemat=
ic.
> The testsuites pass easy and I have no problem to create artifacts out of
> it. Based on this I said, that I would do the release manager again. I ha=
ve
> the scripts for the parallel releases upto date and it's easy for me to
> build the release artifacts quickly using JDK 1.5.0_22.
>
> But now starting to forcefully back port issues is not a good idea, so I
> would like to freeze the branches soon and reject patches to go in. I wou=
ld
> like to also vote against too late patches to go into these branches. Mik=
e
> did hard work to get lots of recent memory problems in the indexer that w=
ere
> fixed in 3x and trunk branch. But we should not add patches from the late
> developments and for sure no analyzer changes (it's impossible, because w=
e
> cannot change analyzers because they would change index format. Robert to=
ld
> me that he does not want to back port any changes here). Next week is
> buzzwords. I would like to start the RC1 shortly after the buzzwords. Sim=
on,
> Grant and Robert and me will hopefully have fruitful discussions about it=
,
> but I think we should come to an end very soon.
>
> So I suggest the following timeline:
> I may accept backports in the branches until Thursday evening, so I can
> start to review the branch on Friday. During Buzzwords, we should not com=
mit
> anything and maybe everybody tests the branch and its changes in Solr and
> his own installations. If you like I could create pre-artifacts (like a
> Hudson build) on Friday) or maybe RC1. I will also merge changes.txt file=
s
> accorss 2.9, 3.0, 3.x and trunk on Friday. After that I don't want to acc=
ept
> any more changes and declare "freeze" on 2.9 and 3.0 branch.
>
> Mark, Hoss: Would it be possible to start the release process of Solr
> together with Lucene's RCs. Would it be possible to *replace" the final
> Lucene artifacts and build the Solr Atifacts together using my builds. So=
 we
> would not block each other and maybe we can release on the same day. This
> would be a good start for future combines Solucene releases :-)
>
> Any comments?
>
> Thanks for all the work.
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_lucene@fucit.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:13 PM
>> To: Lucene Dev
>> Subject: Lucene 2.9.3 ? ( blocking Solr 1.4.1 ? ? ? )
>>
>>
>> My suggestion that we do a Solr 1.4.1 bug fix seems to have gottne Uwe a=
nd
>> McCandless all excited about doing a Lucene 2.9.3 release...
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1934
>>
>> ...but it's not clear to me how realisitc this is, or how close we are t=
o
> seeing it
>> happen. =A0Beyond hte few issues mentiond in that SOLR issue, is there a
>> concrete list of issues that are RESOLVED that people want to backport f=
or
> a
>> 2.9.3 release?
>>
>> I also see quite a few UNRESOLVED issues listed for 2.9.3...
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=3D12310110&v=
er
>> sionId=3D12314799&showOpenIssuesOnly=3Dtrue
>>
>> ...are those really blocking a 2.9.3 release, or should we de-classify
> those as
>> "Fix For 2.9.3" issues?
>>
>>
>> -Hoss
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org