i'm willing to help out
On 9/13/05, Scott Ganyo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is required to make the release?
>
> On Sep 12, 2005, at 3:39 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> >
> >> Erik Hatcher wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm using the trunk of S
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ray Tsang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Oct 15, 2005 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Lucene 1.9 release date?
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Can we add a 1.9 release to the roadmap? or start a 1.9 release tracker issue?
ray,
On 10/15/05, Erik Hatcher &
Also, I think Jira can make a distinction between released and
unreleased versions?
ray,
On 10/15/05, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2005, at 11:06 PM, Ray Tsang wrote:
> > Can we add a 1.9 release to the roadmap? or start a 1.9 release
> > tracker
How about setting some preliminary due dates, so that things don't
just hang there.
ray,
On 10/15/05, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Re Votes - yes, please use that feature to help prioritize.
>
> Otis
>
> --- Ray Tsang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
e all the other versions and only show open issues related to
1.9 release.
Ray,
On 10/16/05, Ray Tsang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about setting some preliminary due dates, so that things don't
> just hang there.
>
> ray,
>
> On 10/15/05, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAI
i haven't gone into this thread in detail, but i simply don't see real
needs for the source to use 1.5 features anytime soon, or if it's
needed at all? as far as i'm concerned is that the existing core is
proven to be fast and stable. will changing the source to using 1.5
language features make
sometimes there is a 2.0.x branch that's like the trunk 2.0 fixes,
while 2.1 or future releases are being worked on in the real trunk.
that is if older releases are being maintained while new releases are
being worked on.
ray,
On 6/1/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Otis Gospodnetic
I think the problem right now isn't whether we are going to have 1.5
code or not. We will eventually have to have 1.5 code anyways. But
we need a sound plan that will make the transition easy. I believe
the transition from 1.4 to 1.5 is not an over night thing.
Secondly can we specifically fi
On 6/17/06, Chuck Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ray Tsang wrote on 06/17/2006 06:29 AM:
> I think the problem right now isn't whether we are going to have 1.5
> code or not. We will eventually have to have 1.5 code anyways. But
> we need a sound plan that will make
On 6/19/06, Steven Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ray Tsang wrote:
> We have statistics of number of users between 1.4 vs. 1.5 (which btw
> didn't present a significant polarization)
Does 63% for 1.5, a nearly 2:1 ratio, really represent an insignificant
polarization? (As of
On 6/19/06, Chuck Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ray Tsang wrote on 06/19/2006 09:06 AM:
> On 6/17/06, Chuck Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Ray Tsang wrote on 06/17/2006 06:29 AM:
>> > I think the problem right now isn't whether we ar
upport COM on MS-DOS - it just didn't happen (as far
as I know). It was possible, but just wasn't worth the effort.
If Lucene 2.1 encourages other companies that provide JREs to move to
support 1.5 that is even better.
-Original Message-
From: Ray Tsang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
S
I think retrotranslator only work on the syntax, but not on the 1.5
specific libraries (for obvious reasons).
A real use case was written up by a Java 5 web mvc framework at
http://stripes.mc4j.org/confluence/display/stripes/Java+1.4+and+Stripes
Once again, so long we stay away from non-1.4 compa
I agree. This is probably the first compelling argument that I would
agree with the use of 1.5. IIRC, Concurrent utils were available for
the 1.4 available at
http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/intro.html
before it was accepted into official 1.5 util package. I
14 matches
Mail list logo
