Yes please! I assumed that was already the case as both lists are copied :)

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 12:47 AM Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote:

> Should we maybe also ask on the Lucene side if any backports to 8.11 would
> be good?
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -----
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>
> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> *From:* Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2022 1:23 AM
> *To:* dev@solr.apache.org
> *Cc:* Solr/Lucene Dev <d...@lucene.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Bugfix release Lucene/Solr 8.11.2
>
>
>
> Thanks for volunteering, Mike!
>
>
>
> I think the commits I was tracking to be in 8x are already there, but I'll
> confirm this over the weekend and let you know in case I intend to backport
> anything more.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 4:03 PM Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote:
>
> To: dev@lucene, dev@solr
>
>
>
> NOTICE:
>
>
> I am planning on preparing a bugfix release from branch branch_8_11
> (likely mid next week)
>
> Please observe the normal rules for committing to this branch:
>
> * Before committing to the branch, reply to this thread and argue
>   why the fix needs backporting and how long it will take.
>
> ** If you're backporting stuff this week still or over the weekend, then
> skip
>
>     the bit about how long it will take.
> * All issues accepted for backporting should be marked with 8.11.2
>   in JIRA, and issues that should delay the release must be marked as
> Blocker
> * All patches that are intended for the branch should first be committed
>   to the unstable branch, merged into the stable branch, and then into
>   the current release branch.
> * Only Jira issues with Fix version 8.11.2 and priority "Blocker" will
> delay
>   a release candidate build.
>
>
>
> Also, please observe that since 9.0 already exists, there cannot be any
> index format breaking changes. It really should only be bug fixes that have
> already been verified on the 9x branch.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Anshum Gupta
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Reply via email to