Why don't people just upgrade to 5.4? Why do we need another release in the 5.3.x range?
Upayavira On Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 09:12 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote: > > There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my > > opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related fixes > > but I'm sure there are others too. > > > > Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release > > and cut an RC next Tuesday. > > Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes that > are not yet backported. > > I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188 > applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2 > section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that nothing > has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut. > > Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I > believe it's a benign change. > > Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch: > > ---- > ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 ======================= > All changes were backported from 5.4.0. > > Bug Fixes > > * LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name) > ---- > > If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and > branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file > should already contain the full change descriptions: > > ---- > ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 ======================= > The following issues were backported from 5.4.0: > LUCENE-XXXX > LUCENE-YYYY > ---- > > Thanks, > Shawn > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
