I quickly skimmed the patches. I'm OK with them being backported to 6.0. Can you mark the Fix Version/s accordingly?
Thanks! On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote: > 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 >
