Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of erickerickson@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.219.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOdYfZUwgewOSv++6y9J7+Vau9e44KNnneUpxAHGSxV+r7PGeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <782D11CD-2CB3-4939-866A-5D4C2DE11C9E@gmail.com>
	<CAOdYfZXiwozq=+-eNeVWt=h955HLcVERhnDmuW_J76zx8YRxEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<68301DAB-273B-4C36-9F59-8520E3630EF4@gmail.com>
	<CAOdYfZUwgewOSv++6y9J7+Vau9e44KNnneUpxAHGSxV+r7PGeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:07:03 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAN4YXvexOPfJbTY7tyEry+azD7jCHiTnUDL9ZbDQ7oUo5+hasw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lucene/Solr 4.01 / 4.1
From: Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I've got some stuff I'm interested in having bake some more,
I'm playing fast and loose with core loading (SOLR-1293 and associated).
Particularly what's up with the interaction, if any, between this and
SolrCloud (I expect that this is just not supported in SolrCloud, but...)

It's going to get a bit awkward to manage soon (yeah, I know that's my
problem). So far I haven't checked any of this in.

So, should I
1> just accumulate them all into one really big patch? I really don't
    want to do this, some if this is iffy enough that I think it'd be clearer
    to track down if there were incremental patches applied. I know, write
    it right the first time.....
2> maintain my separate patches and commit after 4.1 is labeled?
3> ???

Note that the changes I'm working on should NOT change current
behavior, but there's always the chance of spillover. This applies to
either the 4.0.1 or 4.1 I guess.


On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In my case, all the important bug fixes were only just recently fixed or I'm still fixing them - so for my stuff, I see a larger negative with 4.1 vs 4.0.1. They won't bake long in either version - but they should go out soon regardless.
>>
>
> This can be easily mitigated: just commit to trunk and spin up an
> extra jenkins against it. But 4.1 is already stable on the lucene side
> and I don't think we should go backwards.
>
> There is just a lot of little shit, like javadocs fixes, improvements
> to the build, etc that would make it a higher quality release. We also
> have enough features already to make it a real release
> (http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote41).
>
> I'm not really worried about playing tricks trying to convince users
> to upgrade, I think we should just focus on quality releases and that
> comes naturally.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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