(And of course we're going to pretend that the PointValues/DimensionalPoints/DimensionalValues/Numeric/PointField backcompat issue doesn't exist - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396. Sigh. But... nothing that holds up 6.0 per se. It just would have been better to get that tangle straightened out before a release that deprecates the existing numeric field types that Solr currently has no replacement for, let alone a backcompat story for new Solr indexes that will be be created with 6.0 but with a type that won't exist in 7.0, at least with the current plan.)
-- Jack Krupansky On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, SOLR-8812 needs to be resolved and SOLR-8725 I think. For those > two I want to be sure we make a conscious decision to change or not > for 6.0, so consider the "blocker" status a bit tentative as far as > I'm concerned. > > Erick > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:06 AM, David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > FYI Steve Rowe is in-progress reviewing my patches to SOLR-8903 & > SOLR-8904 > > (related to date-time parsing/formatting) that really ought to be done > in a > > major release. > > > > And there's LUCENE-7094 that you of course know about... I'm going to > send > > an updated patch to consider Rob's input now. > > > > ~ David > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:49 AM Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> It appears all 6.0 blocker issues are coming to a close. If there are no > >> objections I will begin the RC process today. > > > > -- > > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker > > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
