Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B67A9F34B for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 5982 invoked by uid 500); 17 Apr 2013 16:37:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 5925 invoked by uid 500); 17 Apr 2013 16:37:18 -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 5918 invoked by uid 99); 17 Apr 2013 16:37:18 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:37:18 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of simon.willnauer@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.177] (HELO mail-lb0-f177.google.com) (209.85.217.177) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:37:14 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id r10so1791572lbi.22 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:36:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=dNM9xqlLhHnqzbEkZ9nQ2pFbTIfSFze2xlRCtRggh9g=; b=ZA3LcYp89BW6tol0P42Oo0PpAdSREDbZqiIoIn32xY7DxKYE/vE/TMRI94kk1op0aQ MnFCFtRE9oL16HtSQGY9/W55ly4btR4FJSPUEuzLyebfDFuY8rGXWNYE6SuWr+TgfQ34 lK9wpRYfDofyLuXLkySYIwRIsrz+nJOQN8nxqWAfB6TeFCmwRgHPC3SWHIAfro2y5VWh ZwKhQOOmTszk4tV+VD/O1ZSLSiLz8u5I4VohG3pzgb0pTbD1XsGoomyBtWF7HU4QkZUv bHWq4EwvU1iMc7AZl6O6wvT+Stm30yk5T/TELtbOBfL4xgL4yUqWW7rwfQbfywf3sZDE P9NA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.150.164 with SMTP id uj4mr3946619lbb.68.1366216612168; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.163.2 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: simon.willnauer@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: <8E3C1AF4-FA1D-492C-9DCB-F7799AA03086@gmail.com> <8711E1CC-1D44-4464-880F-69833AFB0BC8@gmail.com> <101D38CB0D6644038AEBA77D914CB3D7@JackKrupansky> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:36:52 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 4.3 From: Simon Willnauer To: "dev@lucene.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3434bcdacb4b04da91172f X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b3434bcdacb4b04da91172f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable wait, blockers? Sure we wait. Anything else I don't think we should wait for. after the release is before the release. Mark, you are right it's 6 days but there are more committers than robert and all he said is he will do it in 2 weeks. I really feel this is a conflict of interests here at this point and if any other non-committer would have raised that there is one or two issue that could make it in we would have responded as usual that we don't wait or do quick fixes or whatever else came up in the last releases. It's a hell lot of work and if there is a blocker I am willing to do another one. if not I will call a vote in an hour or so. There will always be things we want to have in and we should not block a release because a specific person wants it in a release and that is not new isn't it? nothing stops you for doing a 4.3.1 in 2 weeks and we should do more frequent releases. if you have something serious, go volunteer and call a vote that's how it turned out in the last couple of releases we did and I think it's great. Erick, what is the issue? simon On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Erick Erickson wr= ote: > Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4.3, where does that weigh > in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with > this in. > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky > wrote: > > +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last tim= e > > there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something = in > > 4.2 but didn=E2=80=99t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but= 4.2 was > > already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that > situation. > > > > I like the idea of a more formal =E2=80=9Ctwo week=E2=80=9D window from= =E2=80=9Cfeature [shove] > > freeze=E2=80=9D to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that wind= ow. New > > features then continue on the main dot branch. > > > > And also maybe a loose =E2=80=9CI/we would like to release in a month o= r so=E2=80=9D > > notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature i= n > > before the two-week stabilization window kicks in. > > > > I would suggest that if anybody =E2=80=9Cplanning=E2=80=9D to release a= 4.4 wants it a > month > > after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I > can > > see doing a patch release on a moment=E2=80=99s notice =E2=80=93 for st= abilization bug > fixes > > only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since ther= e > are > > feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release > should > > work at least as well as the previous dot release. > > > > -- Jack Krupansky > > > > From: Robert Muir > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM > > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > > Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: 4.3 > > > > I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict): > > 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute > > feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point. > > 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/whatever. I > > doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities > contribute to > > a quality release. > > > > So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more > days > > for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that onl= y > > those changes to improve stability. > > If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too > however > > I can. > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer < > simon.willnauer@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by sayi= ng > >> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do > and fixes > >> > will make it to the next release right next month. > >> > >> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should > not > >> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software, n= ot > >> hurried crap. > >> > >> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is > quicker. > >> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't kno= w > how > >> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release > and I as > >> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced > before > >> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do anoth= er > >> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever. > >> > >> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very > >> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not > even a > >> day or two notice? > >> > >> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC > all > >> the time with no discussion or notice to the list. > >> > >> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my review= . > >> > >> - Mark > >> > >> > > >> > simon > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller > >> > wrote: > >> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can > >> > actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 = at > >> > least. > >> > > >> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you sa= y, > >> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap? > >> > > >> > - Mark > >> > > >> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer < > simon.willnauer@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Folks, > >> > > > >> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3 > >> > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/ > >> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC > >> > > > >> > > simon > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir > wrote: > >> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidat= e > in > >> > > two weeks, I will. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > > --047d7b3434bcdacb4b04da91172f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
wait, blockers? Sure we wait. Anything else I don't th= ink we should wait for. after the release is before the release. Mark, you = are right it's 6 days but there are more committers than robert and all= he said is he will do it in 2 weeks. I really feel this is a conflict of i= nterests here at this point and if any other non-committer would have raise= d that there is one or two issue that could make it in we would have respon= ded as usual that we don't wait or do quick fixes or whatever else came= up in the last releases. It's a hell lot of work and if there is a blo= cker I am willing to do another one. if not I will call a vote in an hour o= r so.=C2=A0

There will always be things we want to have in and we = should not block a release because a specific person wants it in a release = and that is not new isn't it?

nothing stops you for doing a 4.3.1 in 2 weeks and we should do more freque= nt releases. if you have something serious, go volunteer and call a vote th= at's how it turned out in the last couple of releases we did and I thin= k it's great.

Erick, what is the issue?
<= br>
simon


On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4= .3, where does that weigh
in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with this in.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky
<jack@basetechnology.com&= gt; wrote:
> +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last ti= me
> there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something= in
> 4.2 but didn=E2=80=99t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) bu= t 4.2 was
> already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that situa= tion.
>
> I like the idea of a more formal =E2=80=9Ctwo week=E2=80=9D window fro= m =E2=80=9Cfeature [shove]
> freeze=E2=80=9D to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that win= dow. New
> features then continue on the main dot branch.
>
> And also maybe a loose =E2=80=9CI/we would like to release in a month = or so=E2=80=9D
> notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature = in
> before the two-week stabilization window kicks in.
>
> I would suggest that if anybody =E2=80=9Cplanning=E2=80=9D to release = a 4.4 wants it a month
> after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I= can
> see doing a patch release on a moment=E2=80=99s notice =E2=80=93 for s= tabilization bug fixes
> only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since the= re are
> feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release = should
> work at least as well as the previous dot release.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> From: Robert Muir
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org=
> Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail= .com
> Subject: Re: 4.3
>
> I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict): > 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute
> feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point. > 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/whatever. = I
> doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities contrib= ute to
> a quality release.
>
> So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few= more days
> for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that on= ly
> those changes to improve stability.
> If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help to= o however
> I can.
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer <simon.willnauer@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute chan= ges by saying
>> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and= often as we do and fixes
>> > will make it to the next release right next month.
>>
>> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we sh= ould not
>> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality softwar= e, not
>> hurried crap.
>>
>> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody = is quicker.
>> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I do= n't know how
>> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the re= lease and I as
>> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even an= nounced before
>> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can d= o another
>> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
>>
>> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems ver= y
>> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridi= culous. Not even a
>> day or two notice?
>>
>> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossi= ng up RC all
>> the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
>>
>> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do m= y review.
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>> >
>> > simon
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issu= es can
>> > actually wrap up? I know I have =C2=A0review I want to finish= before 4.3 at
>> > least.
>> >
>> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later= you say,
>> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two = notice to wrap?
>> >
>> > - Mark
>> >
>> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer <simon.willnauer@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Folks,
>> > >
>> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
>> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/as= f/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
>> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC<= br> >> > >
>> > > simon
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a releas= e candidate in
>> > > two weeks, I will.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
>> 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


--047d7b3434bcdacb4b04da91172f--