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.
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
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
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
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
+1 That plan works for me.
IMHO, I don't think there are any open PRs or JIRAs that we need to block
the release on.
I'd be open to cutting a release sooner too, but waiting until Tuesday also
works.
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Justin Leet wrote:
> I have a minor
I have a minor adjustment to the proposed timeframe. I'd like to move the
tentative date for starting the RC process to Tuesday the 22nd. I have a
prior engagement on Monday that will consume the majority of the day. I
was just too excited about releasing. Sorry about the trouble.
Justin
On