On 20-May-08, at 12:32 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:
+1 for your suggestions Mike.
I'd like to see a few of the smaller issues get committed in 1.3
such as
SOLR-256 (JMX), SOLR-536 (binding for SolrJ), SOLR-430 (SpellChecker
support
in SolrJ) etc. Also, SOLR-561 (replication by Solr) wo
Hi Mike,
2008/5/22 Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (btw, if you want a one-line equivalent to "svn up", try something like:
>
> $ wget
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12381498/SOLR-563.patch -O -
> | patch -p0
>
> Reverting is also one line:
> $ svn revert -R .
>
> Although th
On 22-May-08, at 12:13 AM, Andrew Savory wrote:
Sure, Commit-Then-Review vs. Review-Then-Commit ... but I don't
actually think RTC is going to ensure significantly more widespread
review since the time burden on other developers to find the issue in
JIRA, download the patch, apply the patch, te
Hey,
2008/5/21 Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> : I'd tend to disagree: committing the patches to trunk allows widespread
> : testing and the chance for wider review of the code to see if it does
> : what it should. Only when the code is part of a release is there any
> : obligation to a pr
> for maintaining the code. There would also be a high probability of trunk
> never being in a releasable state, given the chance of there being a
> half-baked idea in trunk that we don't want to be bound to for the rest of
> Solr's lifetime.
: I'd tend to disagree: committing the patches to trun
> To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:32:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Release of SOLR 1.3
>
> +1 for your suggestions Mike.
>
> I'd like to see a few of the smaller issues get committed in 1.3 such as
> SOLR-256 (JMX), SOLR-536 (binding for SolrJ), SOLR-430
, May 20, 2008 3:51:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Release of SOLR 1.3
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 20/05/2008, Mike Klaas wrote:
>
> > I've gone and reassigned a bunch of issues that were labeled "1.3" by the
> > original submitter, if the submitter is not a committer (perhaps
Hi Mike,
On 20/05/2008, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've gone and reassigned a bunch of issues that were labeled "1.3" by the
> original submitter, if the submitter is not a committer (perhaps this field
> shouldn't be editable by everyone). That still leaves many issues, several
>
+1 for your suggestions Mike.
I'd like to see a few of the smaller issues get committed in 1.3 such as
SOLR-256 (JMX), SOLR-536 (binding for SolrJ), SOLR-430 (SpellChecker support
in SolrJ) etc. Also, SOLR-561 (replication by Solr) would be really cool to
have in the next release. Noble and I are
On 20-May-08, at 1:53 AM, Andrew Savory wrote:
2008/5/19 Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
If people are particularly eager to see a 1.3 release, the best
thing to
do is subscribe to solr-dev and start a dialog there about what
issues
people thing are "show stopers" for 1.3 and what assi
+1
The code has changed so radically between Solr1.2 and Solr1.3 .Because
1.3 is not released most of us have to stick to 1.2 . So anything that
we build must work on 1.2 and if I wish to contribute back to Solr it
has to be 1.3 compatible. SOLR-469 is a good example where I had to
really hack my c
Hi,
(discussion moved from -user to -dev)
2008/5/19 Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If people are particularly eager to see a 1.3 release, the best thing to
> do is subscribe to solr-dev and start a dialog there about what issues
> people thing are "show stopers" for 1.3 and what assistan
12 matches
Mail list logo