Yes, I meant SOLR-11662 and *not* SOLR-11698. Sorry for any confusion. On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:55 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David, > > Did you mean SOLR-11662 rather than SOLR-11698? SOLR-11698 looks like a > big change that isn't nearly ready yet. > > > Le ven. 1 déc. 2017 à 16:59, David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> Doug's issue SOLR-11698 needs my final code review (probably final any >> way) and I plan to commit that as late as Monday if it goes well. >> >> Erick... IMO: >> * LUCENE-8048 probably needs some "bake" time IMO, plus it's not clear if >> it's committable yet (waiting for other input). >> * SOLR-11687 definitely include >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:41 AM Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> SOLR-11687 and LUCENE-8048 are ones I'd like to consider getting in to >>> 7.2, should they have longer to bake though? Any opinions? >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Joel Bernstein <joels...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > +1. I have a couple of tickets that I should have wrapped up by Monday. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >>> -- >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >> > -- Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
