Should've replied to this thread ! I've been seeing those as part of the 5.5.1 back ports and it confuses me every now and then.
It should've been handled with the 6.0 release so I wasn't sure how to handle those so I've been adding the 6.0 fix version to places where I've found them but I should've removed the 'master' tag. I'll help with the manual auditing and fixing of this once I have the 5.5.1 RC1 later today. On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Chris Hostetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wow ... ok ... so no responses / opinions other then miller, eh? > > Thats fine ... slience == compliance i guess. > > I don't see much choice at this point other then a bunch of manual clean > up. I'll try to find some time to take a stab at this at some point in > the future i guess, not sure when. I'll reply back to this thread if i > do, if anyone else beats me to it please reply here as well so we aren't > wasting eachothers time. > > > > : Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:15:11 +0000 > : From: Mark Miller <[email protected]> > : Reply-To: [email protected] > : To: Lucene Dev <[email protected]> > : Subject: Re: post-branch_6x Jira version renaming(s) got overlooked? > : > : Yeah, sorry, I saw this too. People kept making 6 and 6.0 releases in > JIRA > : during 5x. A couple times I removed them because trunk or master is > : supposed to be renamed when we release. But those versions kept getting > : created again. I figured the rollover was not done right, but with no > other > : complaints I did not really look. Some people with JiRa admin power had > : different ideas. > : On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:40 PM Chris Hostetter < > [email protected]> > : wrote: > : > : > > : > I just noticed that most of the (older) jira's listed in 6.0's > CHANGES.txt > : > files are still showing up in Jira as being fixed in "master" > : > > : > Examples... > : > > : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5950 > : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6631 > : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3085 > : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7560 > : > > : > Only some of the more recent issues, that were resolved after > branch_6x / > : > (and/or branch_6_0) was created, thus people deliberately backported > : > and deliberately marked them as fixed in 6.0 have the newer "6.0" fix > : > version... > : > > : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7056 > : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8831 > : > > : > my recollection is that part of the release process for creating a new > X.0 > : > release is to rename the "master" version in Jira to "X.0" and re-add a > : > new "master" version -- but it looks like that never happened for 6.0 > (is > : > it not documented as part of the release process?) and insstead > entirely > : > new "6.0" jira versions were added. > : > > : > In any case: it seems like we now need to bulk edit *most* of the > : > issues currently labeled "Fixed: master" in both the LUCENE and SOLR > jira > : > projects, so they are "Fixed: 6.0" (i say *most* because obviously > we'll > : > need to audit the issues resolved & committed only to master after the > : > 6x branch was created and leave them alone) .. sound right? > : > > : > (we probably shouldn't remove/replace the existing "6.0" versions in > : > Jira, because we already have issues marked as "Affects: 6.0") > : > > : > Or am i completley missunderstanding the situation? > : > > : > > : > -Hoss > : > http://www.lucidworks.com/ > : > > : > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > : > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > : > > : > -- > : - Mark > : about.me/markrmiller > : > > -Hoss > http://www.lucidworks.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Anshum Gupta
