Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimNNM_W3BZEf-PWW0lmXvKE0WTNUr1fHney6EBW@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1006011105530.23503@radix.cryptio.net>
	<002301cb01c9$4a0e5a60$de2b0f20$@thetaphi.de>
	<AANLkTimNNM_W3BZEf-PWW0lmXvKE0WTNUr1fHney6EBW@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 13:25:46 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinQOBZke9dHLRNXX5J8gArNYLgNMh-iIW2tAYHq@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

OK I'm done backporting fixes for 2.9.3/3.0.2...

Mike

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Michael McCandless
<lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> +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)? =A0I'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, =
but
>> 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 t=
hink
>> that it is a good idea, to now reopen a lot of issues, just to get them =
into
>> 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 unproblema=
tic.
>> The testsuites pass easy and I have no problem to create artifacts out o=
f
>> it. Based on this I said, that I would do the release manager again. I h=
ave
>> 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 wo=
uld
>> like to also vote against too late patches to go into these branches. Mi=
ke
>> did hard work to get lots of recent memory problems in the indexer that =
were
>> fixed in 3x and trunk branch. But we should not add patches from the lat=
e
>> developments and for sure no analyzer changes (it's impossible, because =
we
>> cannot change analyzers because they would change index format. Robert t=
old
>> 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. Si=
mon,
>> Grant and Robert and me will hopefully have fruitful discussions about i=
t,
>> 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 co=
mmit
>> anything and maybe everybody tests the branch and its changes in Solr an=
d
>> 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 fil=
es
>> accorss 2.9, 3.0, 3.x and trunk on Friday. After that I don't want to ac=
cept
>> 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. S=
o we
>> would not block each other and maybe we can release on the same day. Thi=
s
>> 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 =
and
>>> 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 =
to
>> 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 =
for
>> 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&=
ver
>>> 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