Sure, I will. Thanks ! On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 >> > > -- Anshum Gupta
