So, if there was a very-occasional contributor who wanted to put some time into the project this weekend, is there a way to do it at this time? I'm only interested in the generics port as well as making sure that the translation offers (at least one-way) compatibility with Lucene indexes. -r
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > I don't know if we should do that - the generics is quite different from > the line by line port. I would vote we do it personally - I know others are > not ok with it. > > What say other people? > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ________________________________ > From: Scott Lombard > Sent: 12/23/2011 11:21 AM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Merge 3.0.3 into trunk and other forward progress > > The Anonymous class issue is a readability issue not a functional change. > So the release could go forward without it. The work should be continued > in > the 3.0.3 version. > > Prescott are you planning on merging the 2.9.4g into the trunk then 3.0.3? > > > Scott > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 4:37 PM > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Merge 3.0.3 into trunk and other > > forward progress > > > > Im not as familiar with the g branch - the notice issue is > > current, seems like the general incubator has been digging > > everyone for it lately. > > > > Im not sure about the anon or the generics unfortunately > > > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > ________________________________ > > From: Rory Plaire > > Sent: 12/22/2011 12:58 PM > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Merge 3.0.3 into trunk and other > > forward progress > > > > I was just looking at the issues for 2.9.4g since I have a > > bit of time to put against them in the coming week. They are here: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET/fixforversion/ > > 12316479. Are these current? If so I can just keep going in > > the direction DIGY set to help close them. > > > > -r > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:12 AM, michael herndon < > > mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: > > > > > +1 I believe you tagged the latest during release. Code be > > reverted > > > +or a > > > new branch to create a patch for 2.9.4 if something major happens > > > since we have scm in place, so I think merging it would not > > be damaging in any way. > > > > > > for the 2.9.4g branch, I would do a quick scan to see if > > there are any > > > outstanding tickets or input from DIGY or anyone else who > > put in major > > > time on that branch. If there are things that are > > outstanding, throw > > > together a quick list that people can pull from and work through. > > > > > > I can throw up some tweets and point towards this thread if > > you would like. > > > > > > - Michael > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Prescott Nasser > > > <geobmx...@hotmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Its been pretty quiet as of late. I'd like to merge 3.0.3 > > into the > > > > trunk and wipe out the branch. > > > > > > > > Im going to do this by lazy consensus since responses are > > a little > > > > difficult to come by. Im going to do this Jan 5th - after the > > > > holidays to give everyone the opportunity to respond if > > they think > > > > this is a bad > > > idea. > > > > I will do it quicker if people respond it is a good idea however. > > > > > > > > I am also going to package up 2.9.4g the week between the two > > > > holidays - if there is anything that needs to get done > > lets get it taken care of. > > > > > > > > Finally, if I dont hear any other way in the next day or two I am > > > > going > > > to > > > > copy the Java lucene jira issues for 3.0.3 release into > > our jira so > > > > that > > > we > > > > can track and start knocking them down. > > > > > > > > Happy holidays all, > > > > Prescott > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > > > > > >
