I’d like to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7877 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7877> in for 7.0 - should be able to commit in the next couple of days.
Alan Woodward www.flax.co.uk > On 19 Jun 2017, at 15:45, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Here's the update about 7.0 release: > > There are still unresolved blockers for 7.0. > Solr (12): > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6630?jql=project%20%3D%20Solr%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22master%20(7.0)%22%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20and%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6630?jql=project%20%3D%20Solr%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22master%20(7.0)%22%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20and%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker> > > Lucene (None): > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22master%20(7.0)%22%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22master%20(7.0)%22%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker> > > Here are the ones that are unassigned: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6630 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6630> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10887 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10887> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10803 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10803> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10756 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10756> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10710 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10710> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9321 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9321> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8256 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8256> > > The ones that are already assigned, I'd request you to update the JIRA so we > can track it better. > > In addition, I am about to create another one as I wasn’t able to extend > SolrClient easily without a code duplication on master. > > This brings us to - 'when can we cut the branch'. I can create the branch > this week and we can continue to work on these as long as none of these are > 'new features' but I'd be happy to hear what everyone has to say. > > I know there were suggestions around a 6.7 release, does anyone who's > interested in leading that have a timeline or an idea around what features > did you want in that release? If yes, I’d really want to wait until at least > the branch for 6.7 is cur for the purpose of easy back-compat management and > guarantee. > > Also, sorry for being on radio silence for the last few days. I’d been > traveling but now I’m back :). > > -Anshum Gupta > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 8:57 AM Dennis Gove <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I've committed the most critical changes I wanted to make. Please don't hold > up on a v7 release on my part. > > Thanks! > > Dennis > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Dennis Gove <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi, > > I also have some cleanup I'd like to do prior to a cut of 7. There are some > new stream evaluators that I'm finding don't flow with the general flavor of > evaluators. I'm using https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10882 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10882> for the cleanup, but I do > intend to be complete by June 16th. > > Thanks, > Dennis > > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Anshum, > I would like to request you to consider delaying the branch cutting by a bit > till we finalize the SOLR-10574 discussions and make the changes. > Alternatively, we could backport the changes to that branch after you cut the > branch now. > Regards, > Ishan > > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Steve Rowe <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On Jun 2, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Shawn Heisey <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 6/2/2017 10:23 AM, Steve Rowe wrote: > > > >> I see zero benefits from cutting branch_7x now. Shawn, can you describe > >> why you think we should do this? > >> > >> My interpretation of your argument is that you’re in favor of delaying > >> cutting branch_7_0 until feature freeze - which BTW is the status quo - > >> but I don’t get why that argues for cutting branch_7x now. > > > > I think I read something in the message I replied to that wasn't > > actually stated. I hate it when I don't read things closely enough. > > > > I meant to address the idea of making both branch_7x and branch_7_0 at > > the same time, whenever the branching happens. Somehow I came up with > > the idea that the gist of the discussion included making the branches > > now, which I can see is not the case. > > > > My point, which I think applies equally to branch_7x, is to wait as long > > as practical before creating a branch, so that there is as little > > backporting as we can manage, particularly minimizing the amount of time > > that we have more than two branches being actively changed. > > +1 > > -- > Steve > www.lucidworks.com <http://www.lucidworks.com/> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > >
