here is my family hand holding. (btw. I think the analogy is bogus but that is my personal opinion and I stated my points here)
I will upload RC0 on Friday 36 hours from now. Please backport bugfixes to the 4.3 branch. Please don't rush into anything please don't make any crazy feature commits please don't make me freak out. I still stand with my point here that this is a very bad idea IMO and we should vote on what I have here: http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC0-rev1468829/ is this enough for everybody or does anybody need special attention. thanks, simon On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Jack Krupansky <j...@basetechnology.com>wrote: > 4.3... are we there yet? How much longer?! > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -----Original Message----- From: Otis Gospodnetic > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:43 PM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org ; Simon Willnauer > Subject: Re: 4.3 > > Think Family :) > > I told my wife and kids now, in April, that I'll be going to > conference in Berlin in early June. I'll still tell them about this N > times before I actually leave. I won't get in a taxi one morning > heading for the airport and tell her "Well, I told you I'd go back in > April". Well, I could try that, but I may not be allowed back home and > may have to stay in Berlin forever. > > Otis > > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Simon Willnauer > <simon.willna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> wait, blockers? Sure we wait. Anything else I don't think we should wait >> for. after the release is before the release. Mark, you are right it's 6 >> days but there are more committers than robert and all he said is he will >> do >> it in 2 weeks. I really feel this is a conflict of interests here at this >> point and if any other non-committer would have raised that there is one >> or >> two issue that could make it in we would have responded as usual that we >> don't wait or do quick fixes or whatever else came up in the last >> releases. >> It's a hell lot of work and if there is a blocker I am willing to do >> another >> one. if not I will call a vote in an hour or so. >> >> There will always be things we want to have in and we should not block a >> release because a specific person wants it in a release and that is not >> new >> isn't it? >> >> nothing stops you for doing a 4.3.1 in 2 weeks and we should do more >> frequent releases. if you have something serious, go volunteer and call a >> vote that's how it turned out in the last couple of releases we did and I >> think it's great. >> >> Erick, what is the issue? >> >> simon >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4.3, where does that weigh >>> in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with >>> this in. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky >>> <j...@basetechnology.com> wrote: >>> > +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last > >>> time >>> > there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something >>> > in >>> > 4.2 but didn’t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but 4.2 was >>> > already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that >>> > situation. >>> > >>> > I like the idea of a more formal “two week” window from “feature > >>> [shove] >>> > freeze” to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that window. New >>> > features then continue on the main dot branch. >>> > >>> > And also maybe a loose “I/we would like to release in a month or so” >>> > notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature >>> > in >>> > before the two-week stabilization window kicks in. >>> > >>> > I would suggest that if anybody “planning” to release a 4.4 wants it a >>> > month >>> > after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I >>> > can >>> > see doing a patch release on a moment’s notice – for stabilization bug >>> > fixes >>> > only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since > >>> there >>> > are >>> > feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release >>> > should >>> > work at least as well as the previous dot release. >>> > >>> > -- Jack Krupansky >>> > >>> > From: Robert Muir >>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM >>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org >>> > Cc: simon.willna...@gmail.com >>> > Subject: Re: 4.3 >>> > >>> > I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict): >>> > 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute >>> > feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point. >>> > 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/**whatever. >>> I >>> > doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities >>> > contribute to >>> > a quality release. >>> > >>> > So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more >>> > days >>> > for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that > >>> only >>> > those changes to improve stability. >>> > If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too >>> > however >>> > I can. >>> > >>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer >>> >> <simon.willna...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by >>> >> > saying >>> >> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do >>> >> > and fixes >>> >> > will make it to the next release right next month. >>> >> >>> >> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should >>> >> not >>> >> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software, >>> >> not >>> >> hurried crap. >>> >> >>> >> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is >>> >> > quicker. >>> >> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't >> >>> > know >>> >> > how >>> >> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release >>> >> > and I as >>> >> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced >>> >> > before >>> >> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do >>> >> > another >>> >> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever. >>> >> >>> >> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very >>> >> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not >>> >> even a >>> >> day or two notice? >>> >> >>> >> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC >>> >> all >>> >> the time with no discussion or notice to the list. >>> >> >>> >> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my >> >>> review. >>> >> >>> >> - Mark >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > simon >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com >>> > >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can >>> >> > actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 >>> >> > at >>> >> > least. >>> >> > >>> >> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you >>> >> > say, >>> >> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap? >>> >> > >>> >> > - Mark >>> >> > >>> >> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer >>> >> > <simon.willna...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > > Folks, >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3 >>> >> > > >>> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/lucene/dev/branches/** >>> lucene_solr_4_3/<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/> >>> >> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC >>> >> > > >>> >> > > simon >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> >>> >> > > wrote: >>> >> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release >> > > >>> candidate >>> >> > > in >>> >> > > two weeks, I will. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>> --------- >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> >> dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>> --------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >>> >> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
