OK, just a point.
+1
On May 16, 2018 at 09:31:28, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com)
wrote:
Agreed Nick - the ES upgrade was pretty extensive on its own.
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Nick Allen wrote:
> Going to 0.5.0 is well justified without Solr IMO.
There seemed to be broad support for 0.5.0 in the previous discuss
thread. Reopening that discussion is likely to add another couple days of
discussion, which I would prefer to avoid. Just as a reminder, this is a
50,000 foot view of the changes.
- Significant performance improvements in
Agreed Nick - the ES upgrade was pretty extensive on its own.
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Nick Allen wrote:
> Going to 0.5.0 is well justified without Solr IMO.
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018, 7:01 AM Otto Fowler wrote:
>
> > My question is: Is
My question is: Is updating the version a .4->.5 worthy change or would
adding Solr be that change?
Should we do another, last .4.x release and bump to .5 when solr hits?
On May 15, 2018 at 17:31:27, Nick Allen (n...@nickallen.org) wrote:
+1 That plan works for me.
IMHO, I don't think there
Going to 0.5.0 is well justified without Solr IMO.
On Wed, May 16, 2018, 7:01 AM Otto Fowler wrote:
> My question is: Is updating the version a .4->.5 worthy change or would
> adding Solr be that change?
> Should we do another, last .4.x release and bump to .5 when