I will get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10874 into 7.0 and branch
6x in the next few days - I’ll merge to whatever branches are needed at the
time.
Erik
> On Jun 19, 2017, at 10:45 AM, 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]>
>
>
>
>
