On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> I used another solution, which is still not perfect but better than before.
OK I think this is a good solution for now. We'll start a new
back-compat branch on 3.0 once it's released...
Mike
-
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 2:24 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: test-tag does not really test against 2.4, it tests against a
> branch from trunk on 2008-11-29
>
> I used another solution, which is still not perfect but better than
> before.
> I used th
to:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 11:59 AM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: test-tag does not really test against 2.4, it tests against a
> branch from trunk on 2008-11-29
>
> I agree, I should have branched off of 2.4.x when I created the
> back-
I agree, I should have branched off of 2.4.x when I created the
back-compat branch (I'm not sure why I didn't!).
We could either fully fix this now (what you propose), or live with it
(just fix the cases we come across) and starting in 3.x re-branch
correctly (off of the 3.0 release)?
Mike
On Th
FYI, You can always create a branch from a specific revision. Don't
know if this would help.
On Jul 2, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
When doing LUCENE-1723, I restored the old state of RangeQuery & Co
from
Lucene 2.4.1 and added all new things from 2.9 to the new renamed
TermRangeQ
When doing LUCENE-1723, I restored the old state of RangeQuery & Co from
Lucene 2.4.1 and added all new things from 2.9 to the new renamed
TermRangeQuery & Co classes. Suddenly all tests in test-tag, that should
easily pass the RangeQuery tests, failed.
The source of the problem: the 2.4 backwards
