You guys... I'm going to get Itamar a bat inscribed with GIT so he can just bring that to all conversations with SVN. I think it probably pays to do a merge right after we tag it and get the artifacts voted by the community. That way anything that gets brought up in our voting that is fixes and re-cut, will make it to the trunk.
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:43:26 -0700 > Subject: Re: 3.6 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Oh wait. Nevermind...it looks like I did, at least in the 3.0.3 > branch. Hmm, we actually have quite a few changes that are present > only in 3.0.3, that should probably be merged into trunk. Should we > merge all changes in now or after we release? Either way, I strongly > dislike merging in SVN...ugh > > What was that you were saying about git, Itamar? :) > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Currens > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Prescott, > > > > We had decided to update the scripts/version information for 3.0.3 a > > while back, and I just realized I did all of the work and never > > committed it. Yikes. I thought I did, but I must have been > > distracted when I was doing it, and never actually completed it. > > We're still waiting on the Spatial stuff right, so I can get this in > > before release? I don't think it will affect the build/packaging > > steps. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Christopher > > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> This is why they invented git :) > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/compare/5261b571...e4402c22c > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Christopher Currens < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not much of an SVN guy myself, so what I wound up doing was pulling > >>> down the two branches and used windiff on the actual directories. I could > >>> quickly see which files were added, removed, changed, or untouched. I > >>> guess you could do the same things with SVN probably, but I don't know how > >>> or if it is a painless process or not. > >>> > >>> The biggest thing would be having multiple people working on and dividing > >>> up the work. A lot of times, you have classes that span namespaces, so I > >>> guess you'd have to have a policy where you'd stick to a namespace and if > >>> you require something that someone else is porting, just stub it out for > >>> later. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Prescott Nasser <[email protected] > >>> >wrote: > >>> > >>> > What was your strategy for upgrading? Just getting a list of all the svn > >>> > changes between 3.0.3 tag and 3.6? I'm terrible with SVN, but is there > >>> > an > >>> > easy way to compare the tags? (I feel like there must be) > >>> > > >>> > > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:02:33 -0700 > >>> > > Subject: Re: 3.6 > >>> > > From: [email protected] > >>> > > To: [email protected] > >>> > > > >>> > > I used 2.9.4 as a base. Some files were so bad, though, that I ported > >>> > them > >>> > > from scratch. > >>> > > > >>> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser < > >>> [email protected] > >>> > >wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly > >>> about > >>> > > > 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code > >>> > base - > >>> > > > Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use > >>> 2.9.4 > >>> > > > and update the code base? > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>
