I could only git show the last id in your email David.
That means that for most squash and merge the dialog box should be left
empty, as the PR title should already have the relevant info (Jira ID +
short description), right? And when the PR title does not contain this
info, we should edit it
> Personally I think it’s too early right now. Perhaps for 9.0? WDYT?
Agreed; Ant is currently the official supported path so it's too soon to
switch it out to Gradle.
BTW Ilan (and other fellow committers), feel free to immediately delete all
that PR boilerplate text :-) It's for contributors,
Fellow committers,
When hitting that squash-merge button in GitHub UI, the first line of the
dialog for the commit message is set apart from the rest of the message.
Then it's followed by a multi-line text box for the remaining lines. The
beginning line of the rest of the message is often
Ah, ok. That makes sense. IDK how to actually accomplish that though
so I’ll leave it to someone else to figure out.
It’s an open question when we want to take away all of the ant options and go
exclusively to Gradle.
Personally I think it’s too early right now. Perhaps for 9.0? WDYT?
> On Jun
What I mean is that when creating a PR, one has to (more precisely "can")
check the box that ant precommit was run.
I'm suggesting we either replace this by gradle precommit or add gradle
precommit in the instructions.
I know I was following all the items in the checklist when submitting a PR
Ilan:
Failing on newly introduced warnings is much more draconian than having to run
“gradlew check -x test” (or precommit). Compilation will fail. So I don’t think
there’s
any reason to add a note, it’ll smack you right in the face.
“gradle check -x test” is preferred now to “gradle
Thanks starting this discussion, Cassandra.
I reviewed the issues I was involved with and I don't quite see something
worth noting.
I plan to add a note about a change in defaults within UnifiedHighlighter
that could be a significant perf regression. This wasn't introduced in 8.6
but introduced
I started looking at the Ref Guide for 8.6 to get it ready, and notice there
are no Upgrade Notes in `solr-upgrade-notes.adoc` for 8.6. Is it really true
that none are needed at all?
I’ll add what I usually do about new features/changes that maybe wouldn’t
normally make the old Upgrade Notes
Thank you Erick! This is useful and saves time (I was able to set up gradle
with the assistance you gave me a while ago).
I guess that also means Gradle precommit is no longer optional and likely
the text initializing PR's descriptions should mention that in some way...
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at
No, it did not fail for me locally. I tracked it from failing build in a PR
I had raised.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 18:51, Erick Erickson
wrote:
> Cool. You want to take over SOLR-14591 then? Or mark it as duplicate if
> you already have one.
>
> Curiosity question: Did you have gradlew check or
Cool. You want to take over SOLR-14591 then? Or mark it as duplicate if you
already have one.
Curiosity question: Did you have gradlew check or precommit fail locally?
Because I’m puzzled why
it doesn’t fail locally for me.
Erick
> On Jun 24, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Erick Erickson (Jira) wrote:
>
I noticed this today — am testing a patch to fix this right now
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 18:30, Erick Erickson (Jira) wrote:
> Erick Erickson created SOLR-14591:
> -
>
> Summary: Move JoinQuery in JoinQParserPlugin to its own class
>
I've been to Grenoble once. It is indeed a beautiful city.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:45 PM Ilan Ginzburg wrote:
>
> Thank you, merci, תודה for the trust and the welcome, Noble and everybody!
>
> I’m based in France near Grenoble, a flat city high tech hub surrounded by
> mountains.
>
> For
Thank you so much, Erick!
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:48 AM Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> As of my push a few minutes ago, Gradle compiling on 9x WILL FAIL if there
> are any warnings in the code. See LUCENE-9411. I’ve finally finished
> suppressing over 8,000 warnings in Solr, so could check this
Looking forward to it! Thanks Erick!
On Wed, 24 Jun, 2020, 7:26 am Erick Erickson,
wrote:
> re: checkstyle. Feel free to have at that debate ;)
>
> > On Jun 23, 2020, at 6:51 PM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
> >
> > +1 thanks huge step forward for code hygiene
> >
> > Maybe someday we will agree on
15 matches
Mail list logo
