On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Chris Hostetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > : I'd really like to get most of those back-ported, for 2.9.3. I'm > : actively working on this today. I was the one who went and marked > : them as 2.9.3 in the first place on Sat :). > > Ok ... i mainly just wanted ot make sure we were all on the same page > about what issues were being targed for 2.9.3. > > My main confusion is that if these issues are UNRESOLVED, then presumably > they either don't have fixes yet, *OR* people aren't yet comfortable > commiting hte patches we do have to trunk -- in the first case: there's > nothing to backport, in hte second case do we really want to backport to a > bug fix branch if we aren't even confident enough to commit to trunk? > > ...looking at the list in detail, i realize now that a few of them were > commited to trunk (and resolved) you just reopend (presumably to better > track the backport) ...
Well, most of them were this case (reopened for backport). But I've been whittling those ones down, today... > but the majority don't have any patch at all. Hmm only 3 right? You can see them as the OPEN ones (not REOPENED), here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310110&fixfor=12314799 > it would be nice to fix every known bug immediately, but personally i'm > more concerned with having a release "soon" that includes the bug fixes we > already have then i am with having a release "at some point in the > undetermined future" with a fix for every known bug. In general I agree (we should not hold up a point release if the "dev" is not done yet)... there were many other bugs in my sweep that I didn't mark for 2.9.3. But the two that I marked for 2.9.3 I think are trivial & low risk & highish importance to fix. > So the real question is: what kind of timeline do folks think we're > looking at for hte 2.9.3 issues that don't even have patches yet? ... I plan to finish my 2 by eod tomorrow... > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2348 This one I agree we should push out -- I didn't mark it as 2.9.3, and there's no patch and on looking at it I don't understand where the problem is. I'll go push it out... > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2356 This one makes near real-time search unusable by certain apps. It's a trivial fix (setter/getter, forward), to have IW specify the terms index divisor when it opens internal segment readers. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2311 This one is also quite bad -- for apps that need to warm readers before deploying, this also makes near real-time search unusable since you can't actually do "real" warming (eg you can't run a Query). I think this is also a simple fix, but I'll go dig into it next to make sure... > (2356 & 2311 don't seem like "bug fixes" at all -- unless i'm completley > missunderstanding hte issue descriptions -- so they *really* don't seem > suitable for 2.9.3) I consider them bugs, with trivial fixes, in NRT. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
