, D-28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Adrien Grand mailto:jpou...@gmail.com> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:02 PM
> > To: Lucene Dev mailto:dev@lucene.apache.org
/display/INFRA/Git+-+.asf.yaml+features#Git.asf.yamlfeatures-BranchProtection
>>> >
>>> > Uwe
>>> >
>>> > -
>>> > Uwe Schindler
>>> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>>> > https://www.thetaphi.de
>>> > eMai
;> > Uwe Schindler
>> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>> > https://www.thetaphi.de
>> > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>> >
>> > > -Original Message-
>> > > From: Adrien Grand
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:0
hetaphi.de
> >
> > > -----Original Message-
> > > From: Adrien Grand
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:02 PM
> > > To: Lucene Dev
> > > Subject: Re: What should we do of branch_8x?
> > >
> > > It looks like there
riginal Message-
> > From: Adrien Grand
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:02 PM
> > To: Lucene Dev
> > Subject: Re: What should we do of branch_8x?
> >
> > It looks like there is now general agreement on removing branch_8x?
> >
> > I wo
-
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrien Grand
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:02 PM
> To: Lucene Dev
> Subject: Re: What should we do of branch_8x?
>
> It looks like
emoved), release Solr 10.0 four months later, who
> >>>>>>>> cares? Solr 9.0 will be the release with many new features and Java
> >>>>>>>> 11 as minimum requirement.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
gt;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would really, really not start and fuck up the release process for
>>>>>>>> 8.x! Why not release 8.11.1 soon, if you have any changes in Solr to
>>>>>>>&g
fuck up the release process for
>>>>>>> 8.x! Why not release 8.11.1 soon, if you have any changes in Solr to
>>>>>>> do? Why do this release needs to be called 8.12? It is just a version
>>>>>>> number, so why the heck this big issue
efore Solr 9. So what is your exact problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but this discussion is complete nonsense. Its just version
>>>>>> numbers and some hick-hack between two parties that disagree.
t;>>> Sorry, but this discussion is complete nonsense. Its just version
>>>>> numbers and some hick-hack between two parties that disagree. Keep calm
>>>>> and
>>>>> don’t try to make it overcomplicated!
>>>>>
>>>>>
ome hick-hack between two parties that disagree. Keep calm and
>>>> don’t try to make it overcomplicated!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never said that we should kill or delete branch_8x. It can stay there
>>>> forever. I just suggested to make it
o make it read-only and add a note. Unless
>>> there’s really a need to do some 8.12 release (in which case, I’d fork 8.11
>>> branch and move Lucene) I see no reason to act and fuck up the repositories
>>> of both projects which have now a very clear state.
>>>
>>
> branch and move Lucene) I see no reason to act and fuck up the repositories
>> of both projects which have now a very clear state.
>>
>>
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Uwe Schindler
>>
>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357
which have now a very clear state.
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>
> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> *From:* Gus Heck
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:05 PM
> *To:*
d fuck up the repositories of both
projects which have now a very clear state.
Uwe
-
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
From: Gus Heck
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:05 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: What should we do of
>> >> >> decoupled, so Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it
>> >> >> >> >> in GitHub. Anybox may mer
t; rcm...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards
> compatibility testing
> >> >> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat
> wit
>> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir
>> >> >> >> :
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility
>> >> >> >>> testing
th
> >> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> &g
; >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> &
gt;> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must
> provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is
> bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A
> veto without a justification is invali
.html#Veto
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must
>> >>>> provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the
>> >>>> change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affe
y exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A
> veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I
;>>> without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>>>>>
>>>&
remove this branch.
>>>>
>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>>>>
>>>> we already released lucene 9.0,
bably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>>>
>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>>>
>>> On Sat, N
ome 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to
> do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8
> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand wrote:
>> >
>> > Uwe brought u
lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand wrote:
> >
> > Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do
&g
, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand wrote:
>
> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a
> 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.a
or a 8.12 release of Solr (based
>>> on 8.11 Lucene). This might mean some split in the codebase, and this can
>>> either happen in the lucene-solr repo or the solr repo (I'm okay with
>>> either).
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 7:59 PM Adr
t;
>> > I think we should keep the door open for a 8.12 release of Solr (based
>> on 8.11 Lucene). This might mean some split in the codebase, and this can
>> either happen in the lucene-solr repo or the solr repo (I'm okay with
>> either).
&
59 PM Adrien Grand wrote:
> >>
> >> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to
> do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>
ne-solr repo or the solr repo (I'm okay with either).
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 7:59 PM Adrien Grand wrote:
>>
>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a
>> 8.12 releas
up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a
> 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>
Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a
8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
37 matches
Mail list logo
