Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 79967 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2011 12:49:42 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2011 12:49:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 64687 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2011 12:49:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 64624 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2011 12:49:41 -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 64617 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2011 12:49:41 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:49:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of serera@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.48] (HELO mail-ww0-f48.google.com) (74.125.82.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:49:34 +0000 Received: by wwi18 with SMTP id 18so2795219wwi.5 for ; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:49:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=spJmm5032Vj3TGG+8DF3d/CXanLTErSN8k8DERe/mXE=; b=OSIibJ7Q2ECsAx4ctxhmDnCOvh9kn4FmvOmZZNaBrtYk8Sh7EFOrhCR6HbFIYg8Zpk gPyK0JSsdm5qMO8pUpU+sMhgAM2ONcxIU8dMWd9f3nhqBBEqzZLJbL/RkwVUMtKQjyG1 eovSopQeVI/1LHlBPToxbF89w81sU/oJziYT0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=JUsjrx0XkKk1pgsOEnKyFOysh6lakyXcVdykYAfVWY2XuKzG6nMx8zCp0Zpyj8qkvh fZmXPRyrbgWh0xDutSzGWbe4LkRvjn0frQZacVwkJb0OBjPTX1+WwuuahDF1eXrxk+b9 DEs0Gw5eHjlsIU0+iM5S655jquD6PFdtZnz7U= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.62.74 with SMTP id x52mr983009wec.45.1301662153525; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:49:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.151.39 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:49:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 14:49:13 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Questions about 3.1.0 release, SVN and common-build.xml From: Shai Erera To: dev@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce0082e474c58049fdad6c0 --000e0ce0082e474c58049fdad6c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The branch is ok -- 3_1 branch is intended for 3.1.x future releases indeed. If we can commit to releasing 3.2 instead of 3.1.1 in case only bug fixes are present, then I'm ok with it. We'd also need to commit, in general, to release more often. So if we decide to release say every 3 months, then 3.2 can include all the bug fixes for 3.1. If that's the case (and I support it wholeheartedly), why create a branch for 3.1 at all - we could just tag branches_3x? Also, the release artifacts are named 3.1.0, suggesting there will be a 3.1.1 -- hence why I wrote this email. But again, +1 on: * Not releasing 3.1.1, but instead 3.2 * Not branching 3x, but instead only tag it * Name the artifacts of future releases x.y only. Shai On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Robert Muir wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Shai Erera wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> I noticed that 3.1.0's tag in svn is > >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/tags/lucene_solr_3_1. Should > it > >> not be > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/tags/lucene_solr_3_1_0? At > >> least, that's what's specified under "Publishing" on ReleaseTodo wiki. > >> > > > > Yes, I did this intentionally to try to discourage a 3.1.1. Is it > > really necessary to have confusing 3-part bugfix releases when > > branch_3x itself is a stable branch?! Shouldnt we just work on 3.2 > > now? > > > > (sorry i refer to the branch, not the tag here, but i think it still > makes sense). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org > > --000e0ce0082e474c58049fdad6c0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The branch is ok -- 3_1 branch is intended for 3.1.x futur= e releases indeed.

If we can commit to releasing 3.2 instead of 3.1.= 1 in case only bug=20 fixes are present, then I'm ok with it. We'd also need to commit, i= n general, to release more often. So if we decide to release say every 3 mo= nths, then 3.2 can include all the bug fixes for 3.1.

If that's= the case (and I support it wholeheartedly), why create a branch for 3.1 at= all - we could just tag branches_3x?

Also, the release artifacts are named 3.1.0, suggesting there will be a= 3.1.1 -- hence why I wrote this email. But again, +1 on:
* Not releasin= g 3.1.1, but instead 3.2
* Not branching 3x, but instead only tag it
* Name the artifacts of future releases x.y only.

Shai

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:= 42 AM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com= > wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I noticed that 3.1.0's tag in svn is
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/tags= /lucene_solr_3_1. Should it
>> not be http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene= /dev/tags/lucene_solr_3_1_0? At
>> least, that's what's specified under "Publishing"= ; on ReleaseTodo wiki.
>>
>
> Yes, I did this intentionally to try to discourage a 3.1.1. Is it
> really necessary to have confusing 3-part bugfix releases when
> branch_3x itself is a stable branch?! Shouldnt we just work on 3.2
> now?
>

(sorry i refer to the branch, not the tag here, but i think it still<= br> makes sense).

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


--000e0ce0082e474c58049fdad6c0--