Re: 4.1 release notes: please review

Sorry for the delay Steve, i was on the run .. thanks for updating the Notes :) Stefan On Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > Stefan, > > I've gone ahead and incorporated your changes into the release note. > > Thanks, > Steve > > On Jan 17, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Steve Row

Re: 4.1 release notes: please review

Stefan, I've gone ahead and incorporated your changes into the release note. Thanks, Steve On Jan 17, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > Thanks Stefan, can you go ahead and make these modifications? I like the > "priority" sorting you suggested, though I haven't completely done that > e

RE: 4.1 release notes: please review

@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 4.1 release notes: please review My take on release notes is that they mainly talk about new features/big changes, and if other things are mentioned, they are only mentioned briefly. But if you think it's worth its own section, go for it. Steve On Jan 17, 201

Re: 4.1 release notes: please review

Thanks Stefan, can you go ahead and make these modifications? I like the "priority" sorting you suggested, though I haven't completely done that everywhere else. - Steve On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:42 AM, Stefan Matheis wrote: > Hey Steve > > just a quick note about the "admin ui" section in solr'

Re: 4.1 release notes: please review

om] > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:36 AM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: 4.1 release notes: please review > > Hi James, > > Please go ahead edit the wiki page - I'm sure you'll do a better job of > summarizing these than me. > > Steve

RE: 4.1 release notes: please review

AM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 4.1 release notes: please review Hi James, Please go ahead edit the wiki page - I'm sure you'll do a better job of summarizing these than me. Steve On Jan 17, 2013, at 11:31 AM, "Dyer, James" wrote: > Steve, This is pretty lo

Re: 4.1 release notes: please review

Some custom > evaluators may require code changes. Specifically, public or protected > methods from the EvaluatorBag class have been moved to the Evaluator abstract > class that all Evalutators must extend. See > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4086 > -- > >

RE: 4.1 release notes: please review

torBag class have been moved to the Evaluator abstract class that all Evalutators must extend. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4086 -- James Dyer E-Commerce Systems Ingram Content Group (615) 213-4311 -Original Message- From: Steve Rowe [mailto:sar...@gmail.com

RE: 4.1 release notes: please review

really important to mention. - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -Original Message- > From: Steve Rowe [mailto:sar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:26 AM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org &g

Re: 4.1 release notes: please review

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Upayavira wrote: > I know it is a Lucene feature, but the fact that Solr now compresses stored > fields is significant to Solr users, and IMO should be included in the Solr > release notes. I fixed the release year for Solr release notes and added a few lines abo

Re: 4.1 release notes: please review

Hey Steve just a quick note about the "admin ui" section in solr's notes, i would drop "Replication Icon on Dashboard now reflects Master-/Slave- State" because it suggests a bigger change than it really is/was .. there is no new functionality included, it really just shows the right icon (it w

Re: 4.1 release notes: please review

A lot of stuff in a short time! I know it is a Lucene feature, but the fact that Solr now compresses stored fields is significant to Solr users, and IMO should be included in the Solr release notes. Upayavira On Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 07:40 AM, Shai Erera wrote: +1 Shai On Thu, Jan 17

Re: 4.1 release notes: please review

+1 Shai On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Steve Rowe wrote: > I took a crack at the Solr release note. > > I added CommonTermsQuery to the Lucene release note that Robert has been > maintaining - looks good to me otherwise. > > Please help me whip these into shape. > > Solr: http://wiki.apache.

4.1 release notes: please review

I took a crack at the Solr release note. I added CommonTermsQuery to the Lucene release note that Robert has been maintaining - looks good to me otherwise. Please help me whip these into shape. Solr: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote41 Lucene: http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNo

Re: 4.1 release

> > But this is just a test change, anyway. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -Original Message- From: Robert Muir > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:52 AM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: 4.1 release > > I'd also like for Simon to have a chanc

Re: 4.1 release

: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 4.1 release I'd also like for Simon to have a chance to look at this bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4676 I know he isnt back until next week... On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Erick Erickson wrote: P.S. Let's give dedicated souls t

Re: 4.1 release

We look forward to your success! -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: Steve Rowe Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:53 PM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 4.1 release On #lucene IRC, Robert Muir wrote "i'm not RM this time" I volunteer to be the 4.1 RM. S

Re: 4.1 release

esday, we should still be open to a re-spin to >> put quality over a mere day or two of delay. But draw a hard line on >> Wednesday. >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >> >> -Original Message- From: Mark Miller >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:36 PM >>

Re: 4.1 release

a re-spin to >> put quality over a mere day or two of delay. But draw a hard line on >> Wednesday. >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >> >> -Original Message- From: Mark Miller >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:36 PM >> To: dev@lucene.apache.o

Re: 4.1 release

. If one or more of these nasty > "blockers" gets fixed on Tuesday, we should still be open to a re-spin to put > quality over a mere day or two of delay. But draw a hard line on Wednesday. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -Original Message----- From: Mark Miller

Re: 4.1 release

Monday rather than Tuesday, fine. If one or more >>>> of >>>> these nasty "blockers" gets fixed on Tuesday, we should still be open to a >>>> re-spin to put quality over a mere day or two of delay. But draw a hard >>>> line >>>>

Re: 4.1 release

delay. But draw a hard line >>> on Wednesday. >>> >>> -- Jack Krupansky >>> >>> -Original Message- From: Mark Miller >>> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:36 PM >>> To: dev@lucene.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: 4.1 release

Re: 4.1 release

draw a hard >> line on Wednesday. >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >> >> -Original Message----- From: Mark Miller >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:36 PM >> To: dev@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: 4.1 release >> >> >> Saying tomorrow wi

Re: 4.1 release

t quality over a mere day or two of delay. But draw a hard > line on Wednesday. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -Original Message- From: Mark Miller > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:36 PM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: 4.1 release > > > Saying tomorrow

Re: 4.1 release

en to a re-spin to put quality over a mere day or two of delay. But draw a hard line on Wednesday. -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: Mark Miller Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:36 PM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 4.1 release Saying tomorrow without any date that gi

Re: 4.1 release

espond to - and then follow through on those dates. - Mark On Jan 10, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > Okay - I can see your logic, Mark, but this is not even close to out of > nowhere. You yourself have been vocal about making a 4.1 release for a > couple weeks now. > > I ag

Re: 4.1 release

Okay - I can see your logic, Mark, but this is not even close to out of nowhere. You yourself have been vocal about making a 4.1 release for a couple weeks now. I agree with Robert Muir that we should be promoting short turnaround releases. If it doesn't make this release, it'l

Re: 4.1 release

-1 from me - I don't like not giving people a target date to clean things up by. No one has given a proposed date to try and tie things up by - just calling 'hike is tomorrow' out of nowhere doesn't seem right to me. We have a lot of people working on this over a lot of timezones. I think we sh

Re: 4.1 release

I'd like to start sooner than next Tuesday. I propose to make the branch tomorrow, and only allow Blocker issues to hold up the release after that. A release candidate should then be possible by the middle of next week. Steve On Jan 10, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > > On Jan 10, 20

Re: 4.1 release

On Jan 10, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > I'd like to release soon. What else blocks this? I think we should toss out a short term date (next tuesday?) for anyone to get in what they need for 4.1. Then just consider blockers after branching? Then release? Objections, better ideas?

Re: 4.1 release

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Steve Rowe wrote: > > LUCENE-4547 (DocValues > 2.0) is listed as Blocker with Fix Version including 4.2, but recent commits > to branches/lucene4547/ include changes to the Lucene41 codec. Looks like > Fix Ve

Re: 4.1 release

ed as Blocker with Fix Version including 4.2, but recent commits > to branches/lucene4547/ include changes to the Lucene41 codec. Looks like > Fix Version should be changed to 4.1? > > I'd like to release soon. What else blocks this? > > Steve > > On Dec 31, 201

Re: 4.1 release

; I've started pushing on JIRA issue for a 4.1 release. > > If something is pushed that you are going to work on in the very near term, > please put it back. > > I'll progressively get more aggressive about pushing and count on committers > to fix any mistakes if they

4.1 release

I've started pushing on JIRA issue for a 4.1 release. If something is pushed that you are going to work on in the very near term, please put it back. I'll progressively get more aggressive about pushing and count on committers to fix any mistakes if they want something in 4.1. Rem