Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 RC1

Nick: Sure. Here's my current take. When it's done, I'll put it on the trunk, 6x and 6.0. Then it'll be picked up on whatever the next release, be it 6.0, 6.0.1 or even 6.1. It doesn't merit a respin on its own IMO... Thanks! Erick On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Nicholas Knize

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 RC1

Hi Erick. The RC2 respin was already done and the vote is currently open. We can revisit if, for some reason, I need to spin RC3? On Friday, April 1, 2016, Erick Erickson wrote: > I'd like to get SOLR-8812 resolved, but since the problem is also in > 5.5 it's one of

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 RC1

I'd like to get SOLR-8812 resolved, but since the problem is also in 5.5 it's one of those cases where if I can get it resolved without rushing for 6.0 I will, otherwise for 6.0.1 or 6.1 or whatever. Nick: Let's assume that a patch (actually, there is one but I haven't looked at it and won't be

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 RC1

Sorry, and thanks Nick! Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Nicholas Knize wrote: > This VOTE is now cancelled: I'm going to respin (to RC2) to fold in > LUCENE-7158 and avoid carrying this bug through 6.0. > > - Nick Knize > > On

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 RC1

This VOTE is now cancelled: I'm going to respin (to RC2) to fold in LUCENE-7158 and avoid carrying this bug through 6.0. - Nick Knize On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Nicholas Knize wrote: > Thanks Steve! I agree LUCENE-7158 is a bug that should be included now. > Otherwise

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 RC1

Thanks Steve! I agree LUCENE-7158 is a bug that should be included now. Otherwise we're stuck carrying this constant until 7.0. On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Steve Rowe wrote: > Nick, I see Mike has committed a fix for LUCENE-7158 to the 6.0 branch > after your RC was cut,

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 RC1

Nick, I see Mike has committed a fix for LUCENE-7158 to the 6.0 branch after your RC was cut, and the issue is marked as fixed in 6.0. Does that mean you will be creating another RC? I’m going to hold off testing RC1 until you address this. -- Steve www.lucidworks.com > On Apr 1, 2016, at

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 RC1

Thanks for the notice on the broken link Jack! I guess that's what I get for copying an old link to gmail and changing the artifact directory text. These should be the correct links: Artifacts:

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 RC1

I haven't been participating in to testing or voting for Lucene/Solr releases lately, but I was just going to peek at the artifacts since I noticed that these URLs are for the underlying Apache git repo, not the public github. I don't see an equivalent branch on the public github. Maybe that makes

[VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 6.0.0 RC1

Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 6.0.0. Artifacts: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-6.0.0-RC1-revb5f04a67fbb7422cb8f5c91a28b2c8e7eff5e12a