new build is running, thanks nobel. On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <noble.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Backward incompatibility is something that should be considered as a > blocker. > > Anyway , I have fixed the issue in 4.7 branch. I have also fixed the > SOLR-3854 omission > > > You can respin a build > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Thanks nobel! can you please ping me here so I can kick off another RC. >> >> Regarding the bugs that should / should not block a release I think >> it's hard to say which one should and that is my biggest problem here. >> I think with more frequent releases and more point releases we can >> make the intervals shorter and bugs get fixed quicker. I think it's >> also the responsibility of the other committers to maybe go back a >> step and ask themself if a bug should block a release and only if the >> are absolutely +1 on respin mention it on the release thread? To me as >> a RM it's really hard to draw the line. I also think we should not >> push stuff into the release branch unless it's the cause of the >> respin, we should work towards a stable branch an every change makes >> it less stable again IMO. >> >> just my $0.05 >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् >> <noble.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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 >> >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------- > Noble Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
