On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Jack Krupansky <[email protected]>wrote:
> 4.3... are we there yet? How much longer?! > see jack this is exactly what I mean. The "how much longer" questions are the root of all evil here. IMO we should prevent this buy just calling a vote and if tehre is a serious bug the vote fails. everything else will be in a subsequent release. simon > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -----Original Message----- From: Otis Gospodnetic > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:43 PM > To: [email protected] ; Simon Willnauer > Subject: Re: 4.3 > > Think Family :) > > I told my wife and kids now, in April, that I'll be going to > conference in Berlin in early June. I'll still tell them about this N > times before I actually leave. I won't get in a taxi one morning > heading for the airport and tell her "Well, I told you I'd go back in > April". Well, I could try that, but I may not be allowed back home and > may have to stay in Berlin forever. > > Otis > > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Simon Willnauer > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> wait, blockers? Sure we wait. Anything else I don't think we should wait >> for. after the release is before the release. Mark, you are right it's 6 >> days but there are more committers than robert and all he said is he will >> do >> it in 2 weeks. I really feel this is a conflict of interests here at this >> point and if any other non-committer would have raised that there is one >> or >> two issue that could make it in we would have responded as usual that we >> don't wait or do quick fixes or whatever else came up in the last >> releases. >> It's a hell lot of work and if there is a blocker I am willing to do >> another >> one. if not I will call a vote in an hour or so. >> >> There will always be things we want to have in and we should not block a >> release because a specific person wants it in a release and that is not >> new >> isn't it? >> >> nothing stops you for doing a 4.3.1 in 2 weeks and we should do more >> frequent releases. if you have something serious, go volunteer and call a >> vote that's how it turned out in the last couple of releases we did and I >> think it's great. >> >> Erick, what is the issue? >> >> simon >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4.3, where does that weigh >>> in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with >>> this in. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last > >>> time >>> > there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something >>> > in >>> > 4.2 but didn’t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but 4.2 was >>> > already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that >>> > situation. >>> > >>> > I like the idea of a more formal “two week” window from “feature > >>> [shove] >>> > freeze” to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that window. New >>> > features then continue on the main dot branch. >>> > >>> > And also maybe a loose “I/we would like to release in a month or so” >>> > notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature >>> > in >>> > before the two-week stabilization window kicks in. >>> > >>> > I would suggest that if anybody “planning” to release a 4.4 wants it a >>> > month >>> > after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I >>> > can >>> > see doing a patch release on a moment’s notice – for stabilization bug >>> > fixes >>> > only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since > >>> there >>> > are >>> > feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release >>> > should >>> > work at least as well as the previous dot release. >>> > >>> > -- Jack Krupansky >>> > >>> > From: Robert Muir >>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Cc: [email protected] >>> > Subject: Re: 4.3 >>> > >>> > I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict): >>> > 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute >>> > feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point. >>> > 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/**whatever. >>> I >>> > doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities >>> > contribute to >>> > a quality release. >>> > >>> > So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more >>> > days >>> > for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that > >>> only >>> > those changes to improve stability. >>> > If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too >>> > however >>> > I can. >>> > >>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer >>> >> <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by >>> >> > saying >>> >> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do >>> >> > and fixes >>> >> > will make it to the next release right next month. >>> >> >>> >> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should >>> >> not >>> >> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software, >>> >> not >>> >> hurried crap. >>> >> >>> >> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is >>> >> > quicker. >>> >> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't >> >>> > know >>> >> > how >>> >> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release >>> >> > and I as >>> >> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced >>> >> > before >>> >> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do >>> >> > another >>> >> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever. >>> >> >>> >> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very >>> >> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not >>> >> even a >>> >> day or two notice? >>> >> >>> >> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC >>> >> all >>> >> the time with no discussion or notice to the list. >>> >> >>> >> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my >> >>> review. >>> >> >>> >> - Mark >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > simon >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <[email protected] >>> > >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can >>> >> > actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 >>> >> > at >>> >> > least. >>> >> > >>> >> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you >>> >> > say, >>> >> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap? >>> >> > >>> >> > - Mark >>> >> > >>> >> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer >>> >> > <[email protected]> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > > Folks, >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3 >>> >> > > >>> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/lucene/dev/branches/** >>> lucene_solr_4_3/<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/> >>> >> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC >>> >> > > >>> >> > > simon >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> >>> >> > > wrote: >>> >> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release >> > > >>> candidate >>> >> > > in >>> >> > > two weeks, I will. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>> --------- >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> >> [email protected].**org<[email protected]> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>> --------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> [email protected].**org<[email protected]> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [email protected].**org<[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [email protected].**org<[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
