Sorry, i had this backwards: if it makes 4.0 it needs no CHANGES entry :) If it doesnt, then it should have one for 4.1
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Patch looks fine: though it should have a CHANGES entry (since it was > introduced after the beta release from what I can tell) > > The only other things i see listed as bugs are > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3637 and > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3560 > > If these things are safe and useful to fix in 4.0 (the three patches > look safe to me), then do it asap (but of course run the proper > tests). > > Thanks > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM, David Smiley (@MITRE.org) > <dsmi...@mitre.org> wrote: >> Does this mean a re-spin? >> >> I have a low-risk but high impact (in terms of features) bug-fix I would >> like to get in to 4.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4444 >> but I did not want to put the breaks on any release that was being voted on. >> >> ~ David >> >> >> >> ----- >> Author: http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-release-4-0-take-two-tp4010808p4011255.html >> Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
