Hi Erick. The RC2 respin was already done and the vote is currently open. We can revisit if, for some reason, I need to spin RC3?
On Friday, April 1, 2016, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to get SOLR-8812 resolved, but since the problem is also in > 5.5 it's one of those cases where if I can get it resolved without > rushing for 6.0 I will, otherwise for 6.0.1 or 6.1 or whatever. > > Nick: Let's assume that a patch (actually, there is one but I haven't > looked at it and won't be able to until next week) gets through the > process before you re-spin 6.0. Any objections to including it? > > And "let me be clear"... if other issues get resolved and 6.0 is > re-spun before this gets resolved, as far as I'm concerned we'll just > resolve it later.... > > Erick > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Michael McCandless > <luc...@mikemccandless.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Sorry, and thanks Nick! > > > > Mike McCandless > > > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> This VOTE is now cancelled: I'm going to respin (to RC2) to fold in > >> LUCENE-7158 and avoid carrying this bug through 6.0. > >> > >> - Nick Knize > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Steve! I agree LUCENE-7158 is a bug that should be included now. > >>> Otherwise we're stuck carrying this constant until 7.0. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Nick, I see Mike has committed a fix for LUCENE-7158 to the 6.0 branch > >>>> after your RC was cut, and the issue is marked as fixed in 6.0. Does > that > >>>> mean you will be creating another RC? I’m going to hold off testing > RC1 > >>>> until you address this. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Steve > >>>> www.lucidworks.com > >>>> > >>>> > On Apr 1, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > Thanks for the notice on the broken link Jack! I guess that's what I > >>>> > get for copying an old link to gmail and changing the artifact > directory > >>>> > text. These should be the correct links: > >>>> > > >>>> > Artifacts: > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-6.0.0-RC1-revb5f04a67fbb7422cb8f5c91a28b2c8e7eff5e12a > >>>> > > >>>> > Smoke tester: > >>>> > > >>>> > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py > >>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-6.0.0-RC1-revb5f04a67fbb7422cb8f5c91a28b2c8e7eff5e12a > >>>> > > >>>> > - Nick Knize > >>>> > > >>>> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Jack Krupansky > >>>> > <jack.krupan...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>>> > I haven't been participating in to testing or voting for Lucene/Solr > >>>> > releases lately, but I was just going to peek at the artifacts > since I > >>>> > noticed that these URLs are for the underlying Apache git repo, not > the > >>>> > public github. I don't see an equivalent branch on the public > github. Maybe > >>>> > that makes sense since the artifacts are not source code. In any > case, if I > >>>> > click on the artifact link in the email I get a 404, which > references the > >>>> > 5.5 release, not 6.0. The link says 6.0, but the underlying URL is > for 5.5! > >>>> > In any case, this appears to be the proper URL: > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-6.0.0-RC1-revb5f04a67fbb7422cb8f5c91a28b2c8e7eff5e12a/ > >>>> > > >>>> > The smoketester link has the same issue, but won't be a problem if > >>>> > people just copy the literal text from the email since that will > not include > >>>> > the underlying link URL which says 5.5. > >>>> > > >>>> > In any case, I will be a -0 (nonbinding) on this release due to my > >>>> > unhappiness about how points/numerics, including migration, is being > >>>> > handled. That's not intended to reflect negatively on the RM or the > >>>> > logistical aspects of the release process. I certainly won't > attempt to > >>>> > stand in the way of getting 6.0 out ASAP. > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > -- Jack Krupansky > >>>> > > >>>> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 6.0.0. > >>>> > > >>>> > Artifacts: > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-6.0.0-RC1-revb5f04a67fbb7422cb8f5c91a28b2c8e7eff5e12a > >>>> > > >>>> > Smoke tester: > >>>> > > >>>> > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py > >>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-6.0.0-RC1-revb5f04a67fbb7422cb8f5c91a28b2c8e7eff5e12a > >>>> > > >>>> > Here's my +1: > >>>> > > >>>> > SUCCESS! [0:31:26.186710] > >>>> > > >>>> > - Nick Knize > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <javascript:;> > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <javascript:;> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org <javascript:;> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org <javascript:;> > >
