Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 82556 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2011 12:31:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Feb 2011 12:31:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 95055 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2011 12:31:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 94708 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2011 12:31:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 94700 invoked by uid 99); 4 Feb 2011 12:31:39 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:31:39 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.111.4.25] (HELO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.25) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:31:35 +0000 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352AF208F6 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 07:31:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from web1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.211]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 04 Feb 2011 07:31:14 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:references:subject:in-reply-to:date; s=smtpout; bh=YzD0L2LJwsuiUoRonrAexxTrV+U=; b=R50OSgUjsKmFS+INtyIoxRBGOQ51qCjxb2fsGga+/xdUEf4/LRrfukc6HRG4NwTZOqMBblRNV3gaiKKqNWdmIlYGHCXlN4EgAG/yQay9xfOnaT40FeRekt38pzwkGql3SSCfEzqsYc1cTcDOA2rgWogkeBe2lhZajOUcHXbFbaU= Received: by web1.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 136515611CB; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 07:31:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1296822674.3683.1418935585@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: BJPcyIdWQsXI/P0pVk845Fe4+i/FQCEBFq3E3CaDr/rh 1296822674 From: "Upayavira" To: dev@lucene.apache.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface References: <1296751052.20530.1418784727@webmail.messagingengine.com> Subject: Re: wind down for 3.1? In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:31:14 +0000 On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:43 -0500, "Robert Muir" wrote: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Upayavira wrote: > > Just to be clear, are you proposing to release 3.1 of Lucene, Solr, or > > both? > > Both: because our development is merged, I think it makes sense to > merge release engineering too. > > The users can be mostly unaware of this: for example the generated > artifacts are separate and posted on different websites. > But I think we should branch/tag/generate RC's and releases > together... I actually would propose we even have a single vote thread > for the combined releases. > I think this will result in higher quality releases because the 'whole > thing' is what is tested by hudson etc, not solr with an older copy of > lucene jar files. > > This is just my idea, if you are nervous about this speak up, we could > alternatively create two separate release branches (one for lucene, > one for solr) but I would really like to avoid this. This is what I thought you meant, and certainly makes a lot of sense. Upayavira --- Enterprise Search Consultant at Sourcesense UK, Making Sense of Open Source --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org