This is a heads up that I will be starting the release process no earlier than 24 hours from now. Thanks to everyone in advance for their help during this process.
- Nick On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Vanlerberghe, Luc < luc.vanlerber...@bvdinfo.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I added two JIRA issues (Lucene: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7078, Solr: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8802 ) concerning Query > classes that are still mutable and should either become immutable, marked > as @lucene.experimental or get a comment why it’s not an issue for that > case. > > > > Since they are part of the public API, I think now is the time to update > them. > > > > I already converted MultiPhraseQuery ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7064: reviewed and committed > by Adrien Grand). > > > > Luc Vanlerberghe > > > > *From:* Joel Bernstein [mailto:joels...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* maandag 7 maart 2016 21:08 > *To:* lucene dev > *Subject:* [Possibly spoofed] Re: Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 Release Branch > > > > "Major API and bug fixes (no features) can be committed without my > approval before Friday as long as they're reviewed and approved by another > committer." > > > > Hmmm, are there really major API changes underway at this point? As far as > bug fixes needing another committer approval is not something we've done in > the past. > > > Joel Bernstein > > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think with all of the volatility surrounding the new Points codec that > obvious bug/stability patches like these are OK? I know several folks have > been working feverishly the past few days to fix serious (and simplify) 6.0 > issues and squash all of the jenkins failures to ensure stability in time > for the major release. That being said, you're right that we don't want > chaotic committing as we lead up to the release. > > > > So unless there are no objections I'll plan to move forward and start the > release process this Friday. Until then, since this is a major release, as > many people we can get to scrutinize and stabilize 6_0 over the next 3-4 > days the better. Major API and bug fixes (no features) can be committed > without my approval before Friday as long as they're reviewed and approved > by another committer. If there is any uncertainty ping me on this thread or > the corresponding issue and I'll review. I will also send out an email 24 > hours before I start the release process. > > > > - Nick > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:04 AM, david.w.smi...@gmail.com < > david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just want to clarify you(Nick) / our expectations about this release > branch. It seems, based on issues I've seen like LUCENE-7072, that we can > commit to the release branch without your permission as RM. If this is > true, then I presume the tacit approval is okay so long as it's not a new > feature. Right? > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:23 PM Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > With the release of 5.5 and the previous discussion re: 6.0.0 I'd like to > keep the ball moving and volunteer as the 6.0.0 RM. > > > > If there are no objections my plan is to cut branch_6_0 early next week - > Mon or Tues. Please mark blocker issues accordingly and/or let me know if > there are any commits needed before cutting the branch. > > > > - Nick > > -- > > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker > > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > > > > >
