Hello all,
Is there any update on the 3.1 status?
I'm really looking forward to it :)
Regards,
Sanne
2011/2/16 Chris Hostetter hossman_luc...@fucit.org:
: 1. javadocs warnings/errors: this is a constant battle, its worth
: considering if the build should actually fail if you get one of
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Sanne Grinovero
sanne.grinov...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Is there any update on the 3.1 status?
I'm really looking forward to it :)
Yes, we are currently in the feature freeze, but it seems to be coming in shape.
I'm planning on creating the release branch
2011/3/3 Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Sanne Grinovero
sanne.grinov...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Is there any update on the 3.1 status?
I'm really looking forward to it :)
Yes, we are currently in the feature freeze, but it seems to be coming in
shape.
On Feb 12, 2011, at 7:38 PM, David Smiley (@MITRE.org) wrote:
I don't want to overstep my role in this conversation (not being a committer
as much as I want to be),
My advice? Purge both of these idea's from your head.
We don't like to talk about this subject around here much, but rebel
: 1. javadocs warnings/errors: this is a constant battle, its worth
: considering if the build should actually fail if you get one of these,
: in my opinion if we can do this we really should. its frustrating to
for a brief period we did, and then we rolled it back...
On Feb 12, 2011, at 7:38 PM, David Smiley (@MITRE.org) wrote:
One that comes to mind (and to several others I know) is SOLR-1709
Distributed date faceting. This has had working code for a long time, though
admittedly not a proper patch nor tests. That issue sorely needs to get
committed
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
I can tell you that I often stop reviewing a patch as soon as I notice it
doesn't have tests. In fact, I wish we could get the Hadoop Hudson
auto-test stuff hooked in so that it would -1 patches that don't have
I don't want to overstep my role in this conversation (not being a committer
as much as I want to be), but shouldn't there be some thought about what we
should *add* to 3.x before 3.x gets rushed out the door? I have no doubt 3.x
will be stable; I didn't mean rushed in that sense. I'm sure we
Hi David,
On Feb 12, 2011, at 4:38 PM, David Smiley (@MITRE.org) wrote:
I'm tempted to also bring up my distaste for the next version of Solr being
3.something instead of 1.5 (in fact I just did) but I'll just leave it at
that. AFAIK that battle was lost months ago.
:) You're not alone in
Not to simplify what could be a much more complicated response, but:
If you have an issue you really want to get into 3.1, especially if you are
willing to work on it, your best bet was/is probably to jump into JIRA and
lobby for that issue. Action, more than anything, drives these things
-dev@ messages,
they're routed to dev@ (maybe the Reply-To header?).
Thanks,
Steve
-Original Message-
From: David Smiley (@MITRE.org) [mailto:dsmi...@mitre.org]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 7:39 PM
To: solr-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: wind down for 3.1?
I don't want
+1 to the bigger idea and +1 to releasing both at the same time.
On Feb 3, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Just to be clear, are you proposing to release 3.1 of Lucene, Solr, or
both?
Both: because our development
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:43 -0500, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Just to be clear, are you proposing to release 3.1 of Lucene, Solr, or
both?
Both: because our development is merged, I think it makes sense to
merge
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
Hello,
Despite this, I propose we do a 'casual freeze' on the 3.x code base
in 7 days time, in other words we agree for a few weeks we will focus
on bugs and tests only in branch_3x and try to shorten, not length the
list of issues in JIRA
Hello,
Per Shai's previous note, we decided we wanted to work towards a 3.1
release (he mentioned a target date of march 1, don't think this will
happen)
Despite this, I propose we do a 'casual freeze' on the 3.x code base
in 7 days time, in other words we agree for a few weeks we will focus
on
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
Despite this, I propose we do a 'casual freeze' on the 3.x code base
in 7 days time, in other words we agree for a few weeks we will focus
on bugs and tests only in branch_3x and try to shorten, not length the
list of issues
Just to be clear, are you proposing to release 3.1 of Lucene, Solr, or
both?
Upayavira
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:00 -0500, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Per Shai's previous note, we decided we wanted to work towards a 3.1
release (he mentioned a target date of march 1, don't think
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
Despite this, I propose we do a 'casual freeze' on the 3.x code base
in 7 days time, in other words we agree for a few weeks we will focus
on bugs
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Just to be clear, are you proposing to release 3.1 of Lucene, Solr, or
both?
its all the same now
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Not sure I get to vote, but a big +1
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Just to be clear, are you proposing to release 3.1 of Lucene, Solr, or
both?
its all the same now
+1
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Just to be clear, are you proposing to release 3.1 of Lucene, Solr, or
both?
Both: because our development is merged, I think it makes sense to
merge release engineering too.
The users can be mostly unaware of this: for example
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Just to be clear, are you proposing to release 3.1 of Lucene, Solr, or
both?
Both: because our development is merged, I think it makes sense to
merge release
: Despite this, I propose we do a 'casual freeze' on the 3.x code base
: in 7 days time, in other words we agree for a few weeks we will focus
: on bugs and tests only in branch_3x and try to shorten, not length the
: list of issues in JIRA (unless these issues are bugs!).
+1
Looking over the
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: Despite this, I propose we do a 'casual freeze' on the 3.x code base
: in 7 days time, in other words we agree for a few weeks we will focus
: on bugs and tests only in branch_3x and try to shorten, not length
24 matches
Mail list logo
