Yes, let's include this for 5.1. Please backport as soon as you can, so we can keep an eye out for Jenkins failures over the next couple of days.
Thanks. Tim On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Ryan Ernst <r...@iernst.net> wrote: > Tim, > > I think it is really important to get > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6271 in for 5.1. The positings > refactorings that happened for 5.1 have left the semantics of getting > postings information in an odd state. There is a branch there to fix all the > uses within lucene/solr/tests, which I am working on now (sorry, I've been > MIA for a while). The danger of not releasing with this fixed is we are > stuck with the crazy semantics indefinitely (even changing the semantics of > just the return value in a major upgrade seems bad IMO, since it is > surprising, vs a compile break). > > Thanks > Ryan > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I enabled the Jenkins runs for the 5.1 release branch: >> - Policman Jenkins standard randomized test run >> - ASF Jenkins Artifacts builds >> - ASF Jenkins release smoker >> >> Uwe >> >> ----- >> Uwe Schindler >> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen >> http://www.thetaphi.de >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Timothy Potter [mailto:thelabd...@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:58 AM >> > To: lucene dev >> > Subject: 5.1 branch created >> > >> > The 5.1 branch has been created - >> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_5_1/ >> > >> > Here's a friendly reminder (from the wiki) on the agreed process for a >> > minor >> > release: >> > >> > * No new features may be committed to the branch. >> > >> > * Documentation patches, build patches and serious bug fixes may be >> > committed to the branch. However, you should submit all patches you want >> > to commit to Jira first to give others the chance to review and possibly >> > vote >> > against the patch. Keep in mind that it is our main intention to keep >> > the >> > branch as stable as possible. >> > >> > * All patches that are intended for the branch should first be committed >> > to >> > trunk, merged into the minor release branch, and then into the current >> > release branch. >> > >> > * Normal trunk and minor release branch development may continue as >> > usual. However, if you plan to commit a big change to the trunk while >> > the >> > branch feature freeze is in effect, think twice: can't the addition wait >> > a couple >> > more days? Merges of bug fixes into the branch may become more >> > difficult. >> > >> > * Only Jira issues with Fix version "5.1" and priority "Blocker" will >> > delay a >> > release candidate build. >> > >> > FYI - We've already agreed that LUCENE-6303 should get committed to this >> > branch when it is ready. >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Timothy Potter <thelabd...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > I'd like to move ahead an create the 5.1 branch later today so that we >> > > can start locking down what's included in the release. I know this >> > > adds an extra merge step for you Adrien for LUCENE-6303, but I hope >> > > that's not too much trouble for you? >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > Tim >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Hi Timothy, >> > >> >> > >> We have an issue with auto caching in Lucene that uncovered some >> > >> issues with using queries as cache keys since some of them are >> > >> mutable (including major one like BooleanQuery and PhraseQuery). I >> > >> reopened >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6303 and provided a >> > >> patch to disable this feature so that we can release. I can hopefully >> > >> commit it early next week. >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Timothy Potter >> > >> <thelabd...@gmail.com> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > >> > >> > I'd like to create the 5.1 branch soon'ish, thinking maybe late >> > >> > tomorrow or early Friday. >> > >> > >> > >> > If I understand correctly, that implies that new features should >> > >> > not be added after that point without some agreement among the >> > >> > committers about whether it should be included? >> > >> > >> > >> > Let me know if this is too soon and when a more ideal date/time >> > >> > would be. >> > >> > >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > >> > >> > >> > Your friendly 5.1 release manager (aka thelabdude) >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Adrien >> > >> >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For >> > >> additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional >> > commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
