I'm working on a test case for 5762 I'll commit it tomorrow IST On 21 Feb 2014 20:05, "Simon Willnauer" <simon.willna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the problem here is where to draw the line. I think in a setup like > we have with lucene and solr in one codebase the chance to hit a bug > within these 72h is huge. This means the Release process is a huge > pain each time. Then we have bugs that justify a respin and some who > don't. I looked at SOLR-5762 and it seems this one should cause a > respin but the LUCENE-5461 doesn't. It's hard to draw that line since > its pretty much up to the RM and then you get heat if you draw that > line. IMO we should improve our release process and release a point > release every week shortening the vote period for that to maybe 24h. > That way we can get stuff out quickly and don't spend weeks on the > release process. > > I will call this vote here as failed and build a new RC once SOLR-5762 is > in. > > simon > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I volunteer to be 4.7.1 RM. > > > > I’d prefer to delay the 4.7.0 release to include all known bugfixes, > though. > > > > Simon, if you’re okay with it, I could take over as 4.7.0 RM and handle > any respins. If not, it’s your prerogative to continue with the current RC > vote; others can express their opinions by voting. I’m sure it’ll be fine > either way. > > > > Steve > > > > On Feb 21, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Guys, I don't think we will ever get to the point where there is not a > >> bug. But we have to draw a line here. If we respin I have to step back > >> as the RM since I just can't spend more than 7 days on this. I think > >> there should be a 4.7.1 at some point where you can get your bugs > >> fixed as everybody else but we have to draw a line here. I think I am > >> going to draw it here with the 3 +1 I am having. > >> > >> simon > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Tomás Fernández Löbbe > >> <tomasflo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Question here. Shouldn't SOLR-5762 be fixed before 4.7? My > understanding is > >>> that if not, Solr 4.7 won't be able to work with SolrJ from 4.6.1 or > >>> earlier? > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> And I think it should be under optimizations not changes in behavior. > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Martijn v Groningen > >>>> <martijn.v.gronin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Only spotted a small docs typo in the Lucene CHANGES.txt, the second > >>>>> issue under "Changes in Runtime Behavior" should be LUCENE-5399 > instead of > >>>>> LUCENE-4399. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
