Yikes; I’m sure that was painful. So I just back-ported a couple issues, SOLR-8340 & SOLR-8059. I was about to manually keep the 5.3.2 section in branch_5x & trunk in sync but then thought better of it. Might as well wait until 5.3.2 is voted and then do it, since there are bound to be others who want to do the same, so why bother with the intermediate bookkeeping.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote: > Sorry for the long delay but I burnt my hand and so have been MIA. It's > better now so I'll port the issues and cut an RC on Wednesday. > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> > wrote: > >> I've added the section for 5.3.2 in all the branches. Kindly back-port >> stuff that you think makes sense to go into a 'bug-fix' release for 5.3.1 >> only. >> >> I think it'd make sense to duplicate entries for JIRAs we back port. >> >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Seems like Noble ran addVersion.py for 5.3.2 on the lucene_solr_5_3 >>> branch during the 5.3.1 release. >>> I can now run it for branch_5x and trunk with the old change id but >>> there are a ton of property changes to multiple files. Can someone confirm >>> that it'd be fine? The addVersion on 5.3.2, that I'm trying to merge onto >>> branch_5x and trunk was done before 5.4 was released. >>> >>> Also, the change log entry for 5.3.2 is right above 5.3.1 and not >>> chronological i.e. at the top. I think that is how it should be unless >>> someone has some different ideas. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anshum Gupta >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Anshum Gupta >> > > > > -- > Anshum Gupta > -- Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
