The releases are demanding, specially major versions, so thanks for all the effort Nick.
I would like to commit SOLR-8423 and SOLR-8725 to 6.0. They aren't blockers but are bugs and the patch for both are ready. If you are fine with it, I'll commit to 6.0 else, I'd push it out with 6.1. SOLR-8725 is certainly something that I'd push out with 5.5.1 (and if 5.6 happens, with 5.6). On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > hours (acceptable), not days (unacceptable). > > ++ I definitely agree with this. And it looks like the time period here > was less than a day? > > > there were multiple questions about it from more than one person over > a couple days > > ?? I do not see these questions? They're certainly not in this thread > which is where all of the branching was being discussed. If there are > separate conversation threads then I think as the RM I should know about > them? > > > If you’re going to be AFK for extended periods, please let people know. > > ++ This is definitely important. I'm not sure I agree that < 24 hours > constitutes an extended period in this case. Especially given that its the > first major release on the git infrastructure? > > Regardless, thank you to everyone that helped settle these branches. > > - Nick > > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> First, Nick, thanks for your RM work. >> >> > On Mar 3, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > The mistake was to freeze the 6x branch in the first place. The >> release branch is the one which should be frozen. >> > >> > I certainly agree with this. However, over a week ago there was a >> request to hold off on creating the 6_0 branch until Jenkins settled with a >> 6x. I received no push back on this suggestion so this was the plan that >> was executed (several days after that request was sent). >> >> I guess I took this as meaning a freeze on *branch_6x* of hours >> (acceptable), not days (unacceptable). >> >> > I think Mike is suggesting, and I agree with this, there needs to be a >> reasonable amount of time given for someone to respond. >> >> >> My impression was that you were intentionally ignoring questions about >> creation of the 6.0 branch, since there were multiple questions about it >> from more than one person over a couple days with no response from you, but >> meanwhile, you responded on other threads. (Sorry, I haven’t gone back and >> found the exact messages that left me with this impression, so I guess I >> could be wrong.) >> >> One of the RM’s most important responsibilities is timely communication. >> If you’re going to be AFK for extended periods, please let people know. >> >> -- >> Steve >> www.lucidworks.com >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> > -- Anshum Gupta
