Re: Release 3.2 (was Re: Please mark distributed date faceting for 3.1)
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 2:34 PM, DM Smith wrote: > I have a personal interest in LUCENE-2906. If there is anything I can do to > help it along, I'll be glad to do that. I'll take it up on that issue. thanks DM, I know I promised to update the patch after solving the subtask, and haven't yet done this. I'll try to do this tonight. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release 3.2 (was Re: Please mark distributed date faceting for 3.1)
On 02/15/2011 02:07 PM, Robert Muir wrote: On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mark Miller wrote: It appears to me, that the effort to commit the contributions are minimal, and that in this case the true cost is that of doing the release. Heh. I think looks can be deceiving sometimes. I'm not sure I'm willing to hold the responsibility of those commits right now. If someone else is, that's great ... but I don't find them minimal enough for my taste I suppose ;) Depends on what areas you feel comfortable with I guess. Right, this is why some features with functional patches are sitting targeted at 3.2 instead of 3.1. Is it possible that we could put distributed date faceting (SOLR-1709), better cjk handling out of box (LUCENE-2906), and a better default merge policy (LUCENE-854) all in 3.1 right now? sure it is. But is this the best decision... I don't think it is. Nor do I. I'm fine with the freeze. I think as far as 3.1 goes we already have a great set of features that have baked for some time, including some rather serious performance improvements (Mike and I have done some benchmarking against 3.0)... and its already going to be a more challenging release since its the first one since we merged lucene and solr. For these newer features, its not that we are lazy... I did not mean to suggest that anyone is lazy. Far from it, the effort that goes into this project is impressive. its that sometimes you want more tests, want things to "bake" for a while with hudson's random testing, perhaps want some reviews/second pairs of eyes on the code, or maybe even just some more time to think about the change before committing to it. I have a personal interest in LUCENE-2906. If there is anything I can do to help it along, I'll be glad to do that. I'll take it up on that issue. When we commit it and release it, we are signing up for some degree of support in the future. Also, personally I think its better to put out a good release with solid code and a few less features, than a more buggy release that has a couple of extra features. As I said, I'm happy with 3.1 being frozen. This release is much more timely. :) In the past, I saw releases being repeatedly pushed out to get one last thing in. (Maybe it just appeared that way to me.) -- DM - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release 3.2 (was Re: Please mark distributed date faceting for 3.1)
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >> >> It appears to me, that the effort to commit the contributions are minimal, >> and that in this case the true cost is that of doing the release. > > Heh. I think looks can be deceiving sometimes. I'm not sure I'm willing to > hold the responsibility of those commits right now. If someone else is, > that's great ... but I don't find them minimal enough for my taste I suppose > ;) Depends on what areas you feel comfortable with I guess. > Right, this is why some features with functional patches are sitting targeted at 3.2 instead of 3.1. Is it possible that we could put distributed date faceting (SOLR-1709), better cjk handling out of box (LUCENE-2906), and a better default merge policy (LUCENE-854) all in 3.1 right now? sure it is. But is this the best decision... I don't think it is. I think as far as 3.1 goes we already have a great set of features that have baked for some time, including some rather serious performance improvements (Mike and I have done some benchmarking against 3.0)... and its already going to be a more challenging release since its the first one since we merged lucene and solr. For these newer features, its not that we are lazy... its that sometimes you want more tests, want things to "bake" for a while with hudson's random testing, perhaps want some reviews/second pairs of eyes on the code, or maybe even just some more time to think about the change before committing to it. When we commit it and release it, we are signing up for some degree of support in the future. Also, personally I think its better to put out a good release with solid code and a few less features, than a more buggy release that has a couple of extra features. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release 3.2 (was Re: Please mark distributed date faceting for 3.1)
On Feb 15, 2011, at 1:00 PM, DM Smith wrote: > Mark, > I understand what you are saying. In this case, there are two issues that are > not making it into 3.1 because they landed too late. After the freeze. The > contributions appear to be done. So, the itch at this point needs to be > scratched by one or more committers, to commit the changes and to act as > release manager. But it's after the freeze? I'm not sure the contributions are %100 done either. Often these things need to be iterated on a bit once a committer takes a look. And are we sure we are happy with the level of the tests? If these are coming up as candidates after the freeze, I lean towards Roberts line of thinking... By all means, shape them up, add tests, etc - that's the only hope they have - but I wouldn't expect them to get in. Many feel that nailing a release as soon as can be done is more important than last minute additions. If you can't find a sympathetic committer, sometimes, them is indeed the breaks. A feature freeze got a lazy consensus go ahead - I'm not sure we want to consider much more than bugs at this point...but thats just me. > > It appears to me, that the effort to commit the contributions are minimal, > and that in this case the true cost is that of doing the release. Heh. I think looks can be deceiving sometimes. I'm not sure I'm willing to hold the responsibility of those commits right now. If someone else is, that's great ... but I don't find them minimal enough for my taste I suppose ;) Depends on what areas you feel comfortable with I guess. > > As to release discussions involving maven: if the next release were in a > couple of months and nothing had been contributed to make maven better, why > would it even need to be discussed. The last decision could still stand. I > think it is the long time between releases that bring up the same intensity > on the maven discussion. Heh - I wish things where that simple. > > -- DM > > On 02/15/2011 12:08 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >> More contributors contributin' will help us get there! >> >> Release work is not glorious. Release work is not fun (most of it). Release >> discussions involve...*cough*...Maven... >> >> Been there. Many hands make light work or something though. >> >> Many want more releases - few have more time to give - that's my impression. >> Open Source - help scratch your itch is the best advice I can give. >> >> - Mark >> >> On Feb 15, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Bill Bell wrote: >> >>> I would love to see a release every 3 to 6 months too >>> >>> Bill Bell >>> Sent from mobile >>> >>> >>> On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:55 AM, DM Smith wrote: >>> Can we see more frequent releases? Can we look forward to a 3.2 release in a few months? Say May 15? That'd be a "quarterly" release cycle. (Personally, I'd like to see Robert's improvement to the handling of Chinese as soon as possible.) -- DM On 02/15/2011 10:24 AM, Robert Muir wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Smiley, David W. > wrote: >> Distributed date faceting now has a patch and is tested: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1709 >> >> I’m posting to the dev list because I want a committer to mark this for >> 3.1. I don’t want to assume any of you guys see the comment activity. > Thanks very much for adding a test! > > But, can't we just do this for 3.2 instead? I don't like the idea of > rushing features into 3.1 at the last minute because we are nearing a > release (0 open lucene issues, 2 open solr ones). > > Right now the 3.x branch is feature-frozen for 3.1 > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > - Mark Miller lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release 3.2 (was Re: Please mark distributed date faceting for 3.1)
Mark, I understand what you are saying. In this case, there are two issues that are not making it into 3.1 because they landed too late. After the freeze. The contributions appear to be done. So, the itch at this point needs to be scratched by one or more committers, to commit the changes and to act as release manager. It appears to me, that the effort to commit the contributions are minimal, and that in this case the true cost is that of doing the release. As to release discussions involving maven: if the next release were in a couple of months and nothing had been contributed to make maven better, why would it even need to be discussed. The last decision could still stand. I think it is the long time between releases that bring up the same intensity on the maven discussion. -- DM On 02/15/2011 12:08 PM, Mark Miller wrote: More contributors contributin' will help us get there! Release work is not glorious. Release work is not fun (most of it). Release discussions involve...*cough*...Maven... Been there. Many hands make light work or something though. Many want more releases - few have more time to give - that's my impression. Open Source - help scratch your itch is the best advice I can give. - Mark On Feb 15, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Bill Bell wrote: I would love to see a release every 3 to 6 months too Bill Bell Sent from mobile On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:55 AM, DM Smith wrote: Can we see more frequent releases? Can we look forward to a 3.2 release in a few months? Say May 15? That'd be a "quarterly" release cycle. (Personally, I'd like to see Robert's improvement to the handling of Chinese as soon as possible.) -- DM On 02/15/2011 10:24 AM, Robert Muir wrote: On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Smiley, David W. wrote: Distributed date faceting now has a patch and is tested: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1709 I’m posting to the dev list because I want a committer to mark this for 3.1. I don’t want to assume any of you guys see the comment activity. Thanks very much for adding a test! But, can't we just do this for 3.2 instead? I don't like the idea of rushing features into 3.1 at the last minute because we are nearing a release (0 open lucene issues, 2 open solr ones). Right now the 3.x branch is feature-frozen for 3.1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release 3.2 (was Re: Please mark distributed date faceting for 3.1)
More contributors contributin' will help us get there! Release work is not glorious. Release work is not fun (most of it). Release discussions involve...*cough*...Maven... Been there. Many hands make light work or something though. Many want more releases - few have more time to give - that's my impression. Open Source - help scratch your itch is the best advice I can give. - Mark On Feb 15, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Bill Bell wrote: > I would love to see a release every 3 to 6 months too > > Bill Bell > Sent from mobile > > > On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:55 AM, DM Smith wrote: > >> Can we see more frequent releases? Can we look forward to a 3.2 release in a >> few months? Say May 15? That'd be a "quarterly" release cycle. >> (Personally, I'd like to see Robert's improvement to the handling of Chinese >> as soon as possible.) >> -- DM >> >> On 02/15/2011 10:24 AM, Robert Muir wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Smiley, David W. >>> wrote: Distributed date faceting now has a patch and is tested: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1709 I’m posting to the dev list because I want a committer to mark this for 3.1. I don’t want to assume any of you guys see the comment activity. >>> Thanks very much for adding a test! >>> >>> But, can't we just do this for 3.2 instead? I don't like the idea of >>> rushing features into 3.1 at the last minute because we are nearing a >>> release (0 open lucene issues, 2 open solr ones). >>> >>> Right now the 3.x branch is feature-frozen for 3.1 >>> >>> - >>> 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 >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > - Mark Miller lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release 3.2 (was Re: Please mark distributed date faceting for 3.1)
I would love to see a release every 3 to 6 months too Bill Bell Sent from mobile On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:55 AM, DM Smith wrote: > Can we see more frequent releases? Can we look forward to a 3.2 release in a > few months? Say May 15? That'd be a "quarterly" release cycle. > (Personally, I'd like to see Robert's improvement to the handling of Chinese > as soon as possible.) > -- DM > > On 02/15/2011 10:24 AM, Robert Muir wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Smiley, David W. wrote: >>> Distributed date faceting now has a patch and is tested: >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1709 >>> >>> I’m posting to the dev list because I want a committer to mark this for >>> 3.1. I don’t want to assume any of you guys see the comment activity. >> Thanks very much for adding a test! >> >> But, can't we just do this for 3.2 instead? I don't like the idea of >> rushing features into 3.1 at the last minute because we are nearing a >> release (0 open lucene issues, 2 open solr ones). >> >> Right now the 3.x branch is feature-frozen for 3.1 >> >> - >> 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 > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
