Given its triviality, I have made this change. Solr peeps, please view
the messages at the top of the two UIs and object if needs be.
 
Upayavira
 
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, at 11:24 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> I need to check whether the Solr UI messages need quietening down
> (removing the big red "experimental" banners).
>
> This is trivial work that should be done before the 6.0 release.
> Apologies for going silent here - I've been absorbing the impact of
> major life changes.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, at 01:37 PM, Nicholas Knize wrote:
>> Thanks Mike! I will hold off on starting the release process until
>> next Wednesday at the earliest.
>>
>> >We should really reserve some time to "stop" adding new features and
>> >only fix bugs and API hickups
>>
>> 6_0 branch should already be in feature freeze. Only bug fixes, and
>> API cleanups (along with any necessary testing) should be committed
>> to 6_0.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Yes, please delay!
>>> The code is not yet releasable without further testing and API
>>> cleanups. That's my personal opinion, but others might have the same
>>> impression. A major release like 6.0 always needs some time for the
>>> pre-release cleanup, like deprecated APIs, API problems,... We
>>> should really reserve some time to "stop" adding new features and
>>> only fix bugs and API hickups. I wish, I could help, but I am
>>> unfortunately very busy at the moment.
>>>
>>> Uwe
>>>
>>>
-----
>>>
Uwe Schindler
>>>
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>>>
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>>>
>>>
> -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
>>>
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:13 AM
>>>
> To: Lucene/Solr dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
>>> > Subject: Re: [Possibly spoofed] Re: Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 Release Branch
>>> >
>>> > Hi Nick,
>>> >
>>> > Since we are still finding a number of bad bugs (!!) in the new
>>> > dimensional points, e.g. equals was broken on the range query,
>>> > the set
>>> > query for InetAddress didn't work, exceptions on merging sparse
>>> > fields, etc., and since at least e.g. Rob is working hard on
>>> > cutting
>>> > over legacy numerics usage to points, I think we should delay
>>> > cutting
>>> > the RC for now?  Once the severity of the issues settles down I
>>> > think
>>> > it will become clearer that we're ready for the first RC?
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for being RM!
>>> >
>>> > Mike McCandless
>>> >
>>> > http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > 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
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > ----
>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>
 

Reply via email to