lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.2.0
Date Tue, 31 May 2011 01:58:54 GMT
Let's not get caught up too much in the details of a -1 on release, unless it garners a heavy
choir behind it. We want to address any issues that make sense to address, of course. But
the person rolling the release gets to make the call on what is in the release, as well as
whether or not to pull the trigger given people's concerns and 3 +1 votes. If 3 PMC members
feel a release is worthy, and are not willing to pull those votes - delaying the release any
further is a very hard argument to make. There is a reason there is not a veto on release
- it can take a long time to make *everyone* happy. We have seen it again and again. We want
to make everyone happy. But we also want to get a slick and fast release processes down -
and that means trying something a bit different than we have in the past if you ask me.

If someone is really concerned about an issue, and cannot get others on board, they are free
(and I'd say encouraged) to roll there own release candidate and offer it up for vote. 

Lets still put things on the table. Lets still respin when we think we have to. But also,
lets *push* to release.

That's not to say we should not do respins, or consider all issues others want to put on the
table. But we all know the release history and the release dilemma. It's as old as I've been

I agree with Robert. This release will be better than the last. The next will be better than
this one.

- Mark

On May 30, 2011, at 9:27 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Steven A Rowe <> wrote:
>> Yeah, I think it's enough to block a release: broken windows syndrome.
>> It sucks that it was wrong in the 3.1 release - if I'd noticed it then, I would have
-1'd it then.
> its not really broken windows syndrome, there are a lot of bugs (known
> and unknown) with lucene. really releases need to be incremental
> improvements, only really serious shit (like index corruption or
> broken licensing or something) should be blockers IMO.
> lots of the things mentioned here have been broken for a long time (i
> have a lucene-2.4.0 checkout I am looking at just for fun).
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

- Mark Miller


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

View raw message