On 5/30/2011 at 5:16 AM, Shai Erera wrote: > LUCENE-3004 is marked a blocker for 3.2 - are we going > to move it to 3.3 or hold up 3.2?
+1 to move LUCENE-3004 to 3.3. On 5/30/2011 at 3:53 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > As much as I love LUCENE-3147, I'm not sure if we should > try to shove code changes that aren't blockers into 3.2... -1 to including non-blocking issues in re-spun RCs. > Here is my proposal: let's open a JIRA issue for each > thing that was found, and we decide which are blockers > and we backport those to the branch. The rest we should > try to fix in 3.3 +1 On 5/30/2011 at 4:16 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu> wrote: > > 3. Contrib Javadocs include links to removed contribs ant, > > db, lucli, and swing. -1 to RC1 based on this. > > While I agree with most of the other things you said, > I voice some disagreement here. I'm not sure things > like this in contrib should block a release. > > if its so important that it blocks a release, then it > should be in our core product. IMHO, users won't make this distinction. Advertising non-existent components is bad enough that it should block a release. Steve
