You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> on 2013/04/11 01:21:27 UTC
4.3
4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in two
weeks, I will.
Re: 4.3
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Glad you gave me two weeks <G>... I'm desperately trying to get the
> re-work of solr.xml ready, SOLR-4662 is the only blocker left there
> that I know of and I should have it checked in next week sometime. I
> _might_ try to get the schema sharing in there too, but frankly that
> can wait until 4.4. The important bit is that all traces of
> solr.properties is gone so we'll never have released it.
>
Cool, thanks for working on this!
>
> Hmmm, just in time for LR, coincidence?
>
Well and the fact there are something like over 100 CHANGES entries in the
4.3 sections already!
Re: 4.3
Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.
Glad you gave me two weeks <G>... I'm desperately trying to get the
re-work of solr.xml ready, SOLR-4662 is the only blocker left there
that I know of and I should have it checked in next week sometime. I
_might_ try to get the schema sharing in there too, but frankly that
can wait until 4.4. The important bit is that all traces of
solr.properties is gone so we'll never have released it.
Hmmm, just in time for LR, coincidence?
Erick
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in two
> weeks, I will.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
I thought I had two weeks, so that's what I planned on. I figured that if someone else pick up the baton first, they would actually be decent and give a day or two notice.
I didn't go, oh, Rob said two weeks, but some dude might just say "I'm building an RC right now!" at any moment. It's not normally how we operate. Normally, there is a bit of warning before an RC is built. We normally release as a group, not as a lone ranger that doesn't care about the rest of the devs and is just going to make his RC at the drop of a hat with no warning or care what others think.
- Mark
On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dude you had 12 days since rob send the note to the list. what are you talking about?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by saying "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do and fixes will make it to the next release right next month.
>
> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should not focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software, not hurried crap.
>
> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is quicker. As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't know how often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release and I as often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced before the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do another release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
>
> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not even a day or two notice?
>
> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC all the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
>
> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my review.
>
> - Mark
>
> >
> > simon
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 at least.
> >
> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you say, I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
> >
> > - Mark
> >
> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
> > >
> > > simon
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in two weeks, I will.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dude you had 12 days since rob send the note to the list. what are you talking about?
What are you talking about? It has not been 12 days.
- mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
dude you had 12 days since rob send the note to the list. what are you
talking about?
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by saying
> "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do and
> fixes will make it to the next release right next month.
>
> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should not
> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software, not
> hurried crap.
>
> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is quicker.
> As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't know how
> often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release and I as
> often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced before
> the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do another
> release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
>
> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very
> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not even a
> day or two notice?
>
> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC all
> the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
>
> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my review.
>
> - Mark
>
> >
> > simon
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can
> actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 at
> least.
> >
> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you say,
> I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
> >
> > - Mark
> >
> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
> > >
> > > simon
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in
> two weeks, I will.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: 4.3
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Simon Willnauer
<si...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Again, it was not your warning, and the timeline differed. These details
> matter, Simon!
>
> apparently they only matter because it's me I guess.
>
Maybe it was my email that caused the problem. It really wasn't a timeline.
I meant just what my words said: if i don't see a release candidate from
someone else in 2 weeks, then i will create one :)
I'm happy you decided to do it, i didn't really want to be a release
manager, i was just declaring the maximum amount of time I intended to wait
since i thought things already looked pretty good.
I think as release manager you will always piss some people off because its
your job to lock things down. It doesn't matter how much time you give,
someone will always be unhappy that feature X or Y isn't in there: and the
longer the release cycle takes, it just creates more "opportunities" for
this to happen because its more time for someone to create cool fancy
feature Z.
On the other hand, its good to give a period of bug-hunting/fixing/testing
time to improve the quality.
But as far as when to branch: IMO thats also totally up to the RM. anyone
can make a branch. And since its the RM thats going to potentially invest a
large amount of time in making the thing actually succeed, then I
definitely think its their right to carefully pick when to cut it.
The best is if it can be done in such a way that other people feel involved
and join in and help with the process and fixing the issues. I don't think
this is easy to do, but if you can do it, then it makes your job as RM a
lot easier. Not to call anyone out, but guys like Uwe, Mike, Hoss, Steve,
etc seem to consistently jump in and help with all the painful parts like
fixing scripts/bugs/build-system/docs/etc.
As far as timetables, I think its a difficult decision. We really shouldn't
require long periods of "freezes" or anything since we have a stable branch
and really scary shit shouldn't go in there. People always have 72 hours no
matter what you do, but leaving a few days for fixing bugs can avoid
respinning over and over.
Re: 4.3
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidworks.com>.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Simon Willnauer
<si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if you want a warning before a branch is done I have to
> disappoint you that is only encouraging for last minute features. IMO
How does one know when committing a feature is "last minute" if one
does not know when a branch will be cut?
It seems like there should generally be some sort of advance warning
of a code freeze rather than it being a surprise.
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
Steven, I think we don't really have a problem here.
my intention here was to build a release. I wanted to branch to make sure
we work towards the release soon since I think the features are awesome. I
wanted to build a relaese candidate so folks that need to integrate into
apps have an easier life like myself when I pull this in via maven on
several projects I have to test here. The confusion started when make
started saying "wait... can we have ...." etc. I didn't like to announce
branching ahead of time like Robert said but I never intended to
release instantaneously. I saw the release candidate rather like something
we can start working on towards a release.
sorry about the confusion, I learned my lesson...
simon
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (I accidentally sent this only to Simon - resending now to the dev list)
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer <
> simon.willnauer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I didn't expect that this would go
> >>>>> through without any respin. I'd just have appreciated to not get a
> >>>>> "WTF are you doing why don't you tell us etc." if there was a warning
> >>>>> like 6 days ahead.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, it was not your warning, and the timeline differed. These
> details matter, Simon!
> >>>
> >>> apparently they only matter because it's me I guess. but that's fine I
> can take that. […]
> >>
> >> When you say "they only matter because it's me", I think you mean: I
> work for LucidWorks, you work for ElasticSearch, our companies compete, and
> I'm willing to use this opportunity to hassle you in order to further the
> interests of my company. If that's what you mean, Simon, then I call
> bullshit, and I'm further saddened that *you* are willing to use this as an
> argument here. I truly believe that if another LucidWorks employee had
> done the same as you, I would be just as critical.
> >
> > dude where are you coming from? No I am not saying that and I don't
> think companies are related here. I actually was surprised that you are
> working for lucid which wasn't aware of but now that you say it I recall
> you having lucid slide at apache con. But even then, I don't care that is
> not about companies. Lets stop this right here that is bogus. I said that
> because it seemed like a witch hunt to me and I don't get all the pushback
> and resistance here. Next time, if I volunteer for a release I will ask you
> guys all with enough handholding etc. in advance to make sure that every
> body is happen and I can't step on anybodies toes but running svn copy and
> start a python script.
>
> I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you wrote, Simon. Here's where I'm coming
> from: just before you wrote "they only matter because it's me I guess" on
> this thread, you wrote on a private chat to me: "do you get paid for that
> LOL :) […] this is a joke isn't it" and I put two and two together. I
> didn't know how else to interpret what you wrote. I'm happy that I was
> wrong.
>
> In that same private chat, Simon, you wrote (I'm paraphrasing here) that
> once I used the word "fuck", I ended the possibility of having a civil
> conversation. I admit that I used it for shock value, because I wanted to
> convey how I thought you were being disrespectful of others' opinions.
> I'll stop doing that. I apologize for offending you, Simon.
>
> But I won't stop speaking up when I see a problem with the way we conduct
> our affairs on this project.
>
> Steve
>
>
Re: 4.3
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
Thank you Simon for volunteering as RM for 4.3.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (I accidentally sent this only to Simon - resending now to the dev list)
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I didn't expect that this would go
>>>>>> through without any respin. I'd just have appreciated to not get a
>>>>>> "WTF are you doing why don't you tell us etc." if there was a warning
>>>>>> like 6 days ahead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, it was not your warning, and the timeline differed. These details matter, Simon!
>>>>
>>>> apparently they only matter because it's me I guess. but that's fine I can take that. […]
>>>
>>> When you say "they only matter because it's me", I think you mean: I work for LucidWorks, you work for ElasticSearch, our companies compete, and I'm willing to use this opportunity to hassle you in order to further the interests of my company. If that's what you mean, Simon, then I call bullshit, and I'm further saddened that *you* are willing to use this as an argument here. I truly believe that if another LucidWorks employee had done the same as you, I would be just as critical.
>>
>> dude where are you coming from? No I am not saying that and I don't think companies are related here. I actually was surprised that you are working for lucid which wasn't aware of but now that you say it I recall you having lucid slide at apache con. But even then, I don't care that is not about companies. Lets stop this right here that is bogus. I said that because it seemed like a witch hunt to me and I don't get all the pushback and resistance here. Next time, if I volunteer for a release I will ask you guys all with enough handholding etc. in advance to make sure that every body is happen and I can't step on anybodies toes but running svn copy and start a python script.
>
> I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you wrote, Simon. Here's where I'm coming from: just before you wrote "they only matter because it's me I guess" on this thread, you wrote on a private chat to me: "do you get paid for that LOL :) […] this is a joke isn't it" and I put two and two together. I didn't know how else to interpret what you wrote. I'm happy that I was wrong.
>
> In that same private chat, Simon, you wrote (I'm paraphrasing here) that once I used the word "fuck", I ended the possibility of having a civil conversation. I admit that I used it for shock value, because I wanted to convey how I thought you were being disrespectful of others' opinions. I'll stop doing that. I apologize for offending you, Simon.
>
> But I won't stop speaking up when I see a problem with the way we conduct our affairs on this project.
>
> Steve
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com>.
(I accidentally sent this only to Simon - resending now to the dev list)
On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I didn't expect that this would go
>>>>> through without any respin. I'd just have appreciated to not get a
>>>>> "WTF are you doing why don't you tell us etc." if there was a warning
>>>>> like 6 days ahead.
>>>>
>>>> Again, it was not your warning, and the timeline differed. These details matter, Simon!
>>>
>>> apparently they only matter because it's me I guess. but that's fine I can take that. […]
>>
>> When you say "they only matter because it's me", I think you mean: I work for LucidWorks, you work for ElasticSearch, our companies compete, and I'm willing to use this opportunity to hassle you in order to further the interests of my company. If that's what you mean, Simon, then I call bullshit, and I'm further saddened that *you* are willing to use this as an argument here. I truly believe that if another LucidWorks employee had done the same as you, I would be just as critical.
>
> dude where are you coming from? No I am not saying that and I don't think companies are related here. I actually was surprised that you are working for lucid which wasn't aware of but now that you say it I recall you having lucid slide at apache con. But even then, I don't care that is not about companies. Lets stop this right here that is bogus. I said that because it seemed like a witch hunt to me and I don't get all the pushback and resistance here. Next time, if I volunteer for a release I will ask you guys all with enough handholding etc. in advance to make sure that every body is happen and I can't step on anybodies toes but running svn copy and start a python script.
I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you wrote, Simon. Here's where I'm coming from: just before you wrote "they only matter because it's me I guess" on this thread, you wrote on a private chat to me: "do you get paid for that LOL :) […] this is a joke isn't it" and I put two and two together. I didn't know how else to interpret what you wrote. I'm happy that I was wrong.
In that same private chat, Simon, you wrote (I'm paraphrasing here) that once I used the word "fuck", I ended the possibility of having a civil conversation. I admit that I used it for shock value, because I wanted to convey how I thought you were being disrespectful of others' opinions. I'll stop doing that. I apologize for offending you, Simon.
But I won't stop speaking up when I see a problem with the way we conduct our affairs on this project.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > I didn't expect that this would go
> >> > through without any respin. I'd just have appreciated to not get a
> >> > "WTF are you doing why don't you tell us etc." if there was a warning
> >> > like 6 days ahead.
> >>
> >> Again, it was not your warning, and the timeline differed. These
> details matter, Simon!
> >
> > apparently they only matter because it's me I guess. but that's fine I
> can take that. You seem to be very angry, I am sorry about that. I didn't
> mean to step on your toes. I wanted to volunteer to do a release and I
> didn't meant to do a "we release now" thing here. to me a relaese starts
> with a branch, that way we can port pending fixes (like mark did for 4.2.1)
> Building an RC doesn't mean we vote on it.
>
> I can't recall the last time an RC did not mean a vote, unless there was a
> clear statement to the contrary.
>
> I'm not sure why you think I'm angry? Because of the phrase "fuck you and
> your objections"? Simon, I'm talking about your behavior, which I find
> objectionable, and describing to you how I perceive it. Anger? No.
> Sadness that I have to argue with you about you to show common courtesy to
> other members of the community? Yes.
>
> When you say "they only matter because it's me", I think you mean: I work
> for LucidWorks, you work for ElasticSearch, our companies compete, and I'm
> willing to use this opportunity to hassle you in order to further the
> interests of my company. If that's what you mean, Simon, then I call
> bullshit, and I'm further saddened that *you* are willing to use this as an
> argument here. I truly believe that if another LucidWorks employee had
> done the same as you, I would be just as critical.
>
dude where are you coming from? No I am not saying that and I don't think
companies are related here. I actually was surprised that you are working
for lucid which wasn't aware of but now that you say it I recall you having
lucid slide at apache con. But even then, I don't care that is not about
companies. Lets stop this right here that is bogus. I said that because it
seemed like a witch hunt to me and I don't get all the pushback
and resistance here. Next time, if I volunteer for a release I will ask you
guys all with enough handholding etc. in advance to make sure that every
body is happen and I can't step on anybodies toes but running svn copy and
start a python script.
what a peanut gallery....
simon
>
> Steve
>
>
Re: 4.3
Posted by Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I didn't expect that this would go
>> > through without any respin. I'd just have appreciated to not get a
>> > "WTF are you doing why don't you tell us etc." if there was a warning
>> > like 6 days ahead.
>>
>> Again, it was not your warning, and the timeline differed. These details matter, Simon!
>
> apparently they only matter because it's me I guess. but that's fine I can take that. You seem to be very angry, I am sorry about that. I didn't mean to step on your toes. I wanted to volunteer to do a release and I didn't meant to do a "we release now" thing here. to me a relaese starts with a branch, that way we can port pending fixes (like mark did for 4.2.1) Building an RC doesn't mean we vote on it.
I can't recall the last time an RC did not mean a vote, unless there was a clear statement to the contrary.
I'm not sure why you think I'm angry? Because of the phrase "fuck you and your objections"? Simon, I'm talking about your behavior, which I find objectionable, and describing to you how I perceive it. Anger? No. Sadness that I have to argue with you about you to show common courtesy to other members of the community? Yes.
When you say "they only matter because it's me", I think you mean: I work for LucidWorks, you work for ElasticSearch, our companies compete, and I'm willing to use this opportunity to hassle you in order to further the interests of my company. If that's what you mean, Simon, then I call bullshit, and I'm further saddened that *you* are willing to use this as an argument here. I truly believe that if another LucidWorks employee had done the same as you, I would be just as critical.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Steve,
> >
> > I didn't put a "we're releasing now bomb" in, I said:
> >
> > "I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC"
>
> I completely disagree. This differs in no way from "we're releasing now":
> you personally gave no warning that you would do this. Yes, I know what
> Robert wrote; Robert gave a warning and a timeline - you didn't give a
> warning, and your timeline differed from Robert's.
>
> > I didn't expect that this would go
> > through without any respin. I'd just have appreciated to not get a
> > "WTF are you doing why don't you tell us etc." if there was a warning
> > like 6 days ahead.
>
> Again, it was not your warning, and the timeline differed. These details
> matter, Simon!
>
apparently they only matter because it's me I guess. but that's fine I can
take that. You seem to be very angry, I am sorry about that. I didn't mean
to step on your toes. I wanted to volunteer to do a release and I didn't
meant to do a "we release now" thing here. to me a relaese starts with a
branch, that way we can port pending fixes (like mark did for 4.2.1)
Building an RC doesn't mean we vote on it. For me this is something folks
can integrate in their apps as I do in ES and then we can fix bug like the
one I found in the Join module. This is open source and we go and do the
right thing, if you want a warning before a branch is done I have to
disappoint you that is only encouraging for last minute features. IMO
> > If there would have been a discussion about issues
> > to make it in or not because they are blocker I'd have never put any
> > resistance in that. I talked to mark privately and all is good. There
> > was no "there is blocker X I will port it to the RC branch", instead I
> > only got complains no objections. I never said "fuck you and your
> > objections"
>
> I didn't say you said that. *My* perception of your *tone* was: I don't
> care what you think, I'm doing this, aka "fuck you and your objections".
>
that's your problem I guess.
simon
>
> Steve
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 4.3
Posted by Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I didn't put a "we're releasing now bomb" in, I said:
>
> "I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC"
I completely disagree. This differs in no way from "we're releasing now": you personally gave no warning that you would do this. Yes, I know what Robert wrote; Robert gave a warning and a timeline - you didn't give a warning, and your timeline differed from Robert's.
> I didn't expect that this would go
> through without any respin. I'd just have appreciated to not get a
> "WTF are you doing why don't you tell us etc." if there was a warning
> like 6 days ahead.
Again, it was not your warning, and the timeline differed. These details matter, Simon!
> If there would have been a discussion about issues
> to make it in or not because they are blocker I'd have never put any
> resistance in that. I talked to mark privately and all is good. There
> was no "there is blocker X I will port it to the RC branch", instead I
> only got complains no objections. I never said "fuck you and your
> objections"
I didn't say you said that. *My* perception of your *tone* was: I don't care what you think, I'm doing this, aka "fuck you and your objections".
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
Steve,
I didn't put a "we're releasing now bomb" in, I said:
"I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC"
we have done this often in the past and each time if something serious
came up we just did a re-spin. I didn't expect that this would go
through without any respin. I'd just have appreciated to not get a
"WTF are you doing why don't you tell us etc." if there was a warning
like 6 days ahead. If there would have been a discussion about issues
to make it in or not because they are blocker I'd have never put any
resistance in that. I talked to mark privately and all is good. There
was no "there is blocker X I will port it to the RC branch", instead I
only got complains no objections. I never said "fuck you and your
objections"
my $0.05
simon
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the warning has been given 6 days ago. I am just answering the rough tone that I was facing when I say I created a release branch that's all. And honestly this bugs me a lot and makes me think a bit about this "community" of shouting. Whoever shouts loudest wins the game... my $0.05
>
> Speaking of tone, Simon, yours too is less than friendly.
>
> I perceived your we're-releasing-now bomb as rude. I know I'm not alone in this. You haven't changed that perception with your "fuck you and your objections" tone.
>
> By the way, objecting is not shouting. For communities to function in the long term, they need to have a way to police behavior. Peers objecting to each others' actions seems like a pretty benign mechanism to me, as these things go.
>
> If we aren't going to put process in place to initiate releases, then we really need to respect other people's objections to instant releases by waiting. You did this. Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Simon,
On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the warning has been given 6 days ago. I am just answering the rough tone that I was facing when I say I created a release branch that's all. And honestly this bugs me a lot and makes me think a bit about this "community" of shouting. Whoever shouts loudest wins the game... my $0.05
Speaking of tone, Simon, yours too is less than friendly.
I perceived your we're-releasing-now bomb as rude. I know I'm not alone in this. You haven't changed that perception with your "fuck you and your objections" tone.
By the way, objecting is not shouting. For communities to function in the long term, they need to have a way to police behavior. Peers objecting to each others' actions seems like a pretty benign mechanism to me, as these things go.
If we aren't going to put process in place to initiate releases, then we really need to respect other people's objections to instant releases by waiting. You did this. Thanks.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> the warning has been given 6 days ago.
Robert warned 6 days ago he would roll a release in two weeks. His warning is not your warning that you would roll a release today. I think you are confusing Robert's warning for a warning you didn't give.
- Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > here is my family hand holding. (btw. I think the analogy is bogus but
> that is my personal opinion and I stated my points here)
> >
> > I will upload RC0 on Friday 36 hours from now.
>
> Thank you. When working with a community of developers, that is only fair.
>
> > Please backport bugfixes to the 4.3 branch. Please don't rush into
> anything please don't make any crazy feature commits please don't make me
> freak out. I still stand with my point here that this is a very bad idea
> IMO and we should vote on what I have here:
> >
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC0-rev1468829/
>
> -1
>
for what reason?
>
> >
> > is this enough for everybody or does anybody need special attention.
>
> It's enough for me. I like the idea of all of us working somewhat together
> towards a release rather than one guy just saying this is how it is and
> giving no warning to his plans.
>
> The Lucene community operates under the assumption that we discuss and
> plan on the user list and that we give time for those in alternate
> timezones and what not to participate. No warning actions are an
> anti-pattern in a community larger than one, or one that is not run by a
> dictator (malevolent or benevolent).
>
> I'm glad you decided to give us some warning.
>
the warning has been given 6 days ago. I am just answering the rough tone
that I was facing when I say I created a release branch that's all. And
honestly this bugs me a lot and makes me think a bit about this "community"
of shouting. Whoever shouts loudest wins the game... my $0.05
simon
> - mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 4.3
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> here is my family hand holding. (btw. I think the analogy is bogus but that is my personal opinion and I stated my points here)
>
> I will upload RC0 on Friday 36 hours from now.
Thank you. When working with a community of developers, that is only fair.
> Please backport bugfixes to the 4.3 branch. Please don't rush into anything please don't make any crazy feature commits please don't make me freak out. I still stand with my point here that this is a very bad idea IMO and we should vote on what I have here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC0-rev1468829/
-1
>
> is this enough for everybody or does anybody need special attention.
It's enough for me. I like the idea of all of us working somewhat together towards a release rather than one guy just saying this is how it is and giving no warning to his plans.
The Lucene community operates under the assumption that we discuss and plan on the user list and that we give time for those in alternate timezones and what not to participate. No warning actions are an anti-pattern in a community larger than one, or one that is not run by a dictator (malevolent or benevolent).
I'm glad you decided to give us some warning.
- mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
here is my family hand holding. (btw. I think the analogy is bogus but that
is my personal opinion and I stated my points here)
I will upload RC0 on Friday 36 hours from now. Please backport bugfixes to
the 4.3 branch. Please don't rush into anything please don't make any crazy
feature commits please don't make me freak out. I still stand with my point
here that this is a very bad idea IMO and we should vote on what I have
here:
http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC0-rev1468829/
is this enough for everybody or does anybody need special attention.
thanks,
simon
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Jack Krupansky <ja...@basetechnology.com>wrote:
> 4.3... are we there yet? How much longer?!
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Otis Gospodnetic
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:43 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org ; Simon Willnauer
> Subject: Re: 4.3
>
> Think Family :)
>
> I told my wife and kids now, in April, that I'll be going to
> conference in Berlin in early June. I'll still tell them about this N
> times before I actually leave. I won't get in a taxi one morning
> heading for the airport and tell her "Well, I told you I'd go back in
> April". Well, I could try that, but I may not be allowed back home and
> may have to stay in Berlin forever.
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Simon Willnauer
> <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> wait, blockers? Sure we wait. Anything else I don't think we should wait
>> for. after the release is before the release. Mark, you are right it's 6
>> days but there are more committers than robert and all he said is he will
>> do
>> it in 2 weeks. I really feel this is a conflict of interests here at this
>> point and if any other non-committer would have raised that there is one
>> or
>> two issue that could make it in we would have responded as usual that we
>> don't wait or do quick fixes or whatever else came up in the last
>> releases.
>> It's a hell lot of work and if there is a blocker I am willing to do
>> another
>> one. if not I will call a vote in an hour or so.
>>
>> There will always be things we want to have in and we should not block a
>> release because a specific person wants it in a release and that is not
>> new
>> isn't it?
>>
>> nothing stops you for doing a 4.3.1 in 2 weeks and we should do more
>> frequent releases. if you have something serious, go volunteer and call a
>> vote that's how it turned out in the last couple of releases we did and I
>> think it's great.
>>
>> Erick, what is the issue?
>>
>> simon
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4.3, where does that weigh
>>> in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with
>>> this in.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky
>>> <ja...@basetechnology.com> wrote:
>>> > +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last >
>>> time
>>> > there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something
>>> > in
>>> > 4.2 but didn’t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but 4.2 was
>>> > already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that
>>> > situation.
>>> >
>>> > I like the idea of a more formal “two week” window from “feature >
>>> [shove]
>>> > freeze” to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that window. New
>>> > features then continue on the main dot branch.
>>> >
>>> > And also maybe a loose “I/we would like to release in a month or so”
>>> > notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature
>>> > in
>>> > before the two-week stabilization window kicks in.
>>> >
>>> > I would suggest that if anybody “planning” to release a 4.4 wants it a
>>> > month
>>> > after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I
>>> > can
>>> > see doing a patch release on a moment’s notice – for stabilization bug
>>> > fixes
>>> > only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since >
>>> there
>>> > are
>>> > feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release
>>> > should
>>> > work at least as well as the previous dot release.
>>> >
>>> > -- Jack Krupansky
>>> >
>>> > From: Robert Muir
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM
>>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> > Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
>>> > Subject: Re: 4.3
>>> >
>>> > I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict):
>>> > 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute
>>> > feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point.
>>> > 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/**whatever.
>>> I
>>> > doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities
>>> > contribute to
>>> > a quality release.
>>> >
>>> > So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more
>>> > days
>>> > for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that >
>>> only
>>> > those changes to improve stability.
>>> > If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too
>>> > however
>>> > I can.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer
>>> >> <si...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by
>>> >> > saying
>>> >> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do
>>> >> > and fixes
>>> >> > will make it to the next release right next month.
>>> >>
>>> >> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should
>>> >> not
>>> >> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software,
>>> >> not
>>> >> hurried crap.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is
>>> >> > quicker.
>>> >> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't >>
>>> > know
>>> >> > how
>>> >> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release
>>> >> > and I as
>>> >> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced
>>> >> > before
>>> >> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do
>>> >> > another
>>> >> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
>>> >>
>>> >> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very
>>> >> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not
>>> >> even a
>>> >> day or two notice?
>>> >>
>>> >> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC
>>> >> all
>>> >> the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my >>
>>> review.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Mark
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > simon
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can
>>> >> > actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3
>>> >> > at
>>> >> > least.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you
>>> >> > say,
>>> >> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - Mark
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer
>>> >> > <si...@gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Folks,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/lucene/dev/branches/**
>>> lucene_solr_4_3/<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/>
>>> >> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > simon
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release >> > >
>>> candidate
>>> >> > > in
>>> >> > > two weeks, I will.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ---------
>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<de...@lucene.apache.org>
>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<de...@lucene.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<de...@lucene.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<de...@lucene.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Jack Krupansky <ja...@basetechnology.com>wrote:
> 4.3... are we there yet? How much longer?!
>
see jack this is exactly what I mean. The "how much longer" questions are
the root of all evil here. IMO we should prevent this buy just calling a
vote and if tehre is a serious bug the vote fails. everything else will be
in a subsequent release.
simon
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Otis Gospodnetic
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:43 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org ; Simon Willnauer
> Subject: Re: 4.3
>
> Think Family :)
>
> I told my wife and kids now, in April, that I'll be going to
> conference in Berlin in early June. I'll still tell them about this N
> times before I actually leave. I won't get in a taxi one morning
> heading for the airport and tell her "Well, I told you I'd go back in
> April". Well, I could try that, but I may not be allowed back home and
> may have to stay in Berlin forever.
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Simon Willnauer
> <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> wait, blockers? Sure we wait. Anything else I don't think we should wait
>> for. after the release is before the release. Mark, you are right it's 6
>> days but there are more committers than robert and all he said is he will
>> do
>> it in 2 weeks. I really feel this is a conflict of interests here at this
>> point and if any other non-committer would have raised that there is one
>> or
>> two issue that could make it in we would have responded as usual that we
>> don't wait or do quick fixes or whatever else came up in the last
>> releases.
>> It's a hell lot of work and if there is a blocker I am willing to do
>> another
>> one. if not I will call a vote in an hour or so.
>>
>> There will always be things we want to have in and we should not block a
>> release because a specific person wants it in a release and that is not
>> new
>> isn't it?
>>
>> nothing stops you for doing a 4.3.1 in 2 weeks and we should do more
>> frequent releases. if you have something serious, go volunteer and call a
>> vote that's how it turned out in the last couple of releases we did and I
>> think it's great.
>>
>> Erick, what is the issue?
>>
>> simon
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4.3, where does that weigh
>>> in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with
>>> this in.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky
>>> <ja...@basetechnology.com> wrote:
>>> > +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last >
>>> time
>>> > there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something
>>> > in
>>> > 4.2 but didn’t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but 4.2 was
>>> > already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that
>>> > situation.
>>> >
>>> > I like the idea of a more formal “two week” window from “feature >
>>> [shove]
>>> > freeze” to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that window. New
>>> > features then continue on the main dot branch.
>>> >
>>> > And also maybe a loose “I/we would like to release in a month or so”
>>> > notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature
>>> > in
>>> > before the two-week stabilization window kicks in.
>>> >
>>> > I would suggest that if anybody “planning” to release a 4.4 wants it a
>>> > month
>>> > after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I
>>> > can
>>> > see doing a patch release on a moment’s notice – for stabilization bug
>>> > fixes
>>> > only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since >
>>> there
>>> > are
>>> > feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release
>>> > should
>>> > work at least as well as the previous dot release.
>>> >
>>> > -- Jack Krupansky
>>> >
>>> > From: Robert Muir
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM
>>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> > Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
>>> > Subject: Re: 4.3
>>> >
>>> > I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict):
>>> > 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute
>>> > feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point.
>>> > 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/**whatever.
>>> I
>>> > doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities
>>> > contribute to
>>> > a quality release.
>>> >
>>> > So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more
>>> > days
>>> > for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that >
>>> only
>>> > those changes to improve stability.
>>> > If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too
>>> > however
>>> > I can.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer
>>> >> <si...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by
>>> >> > saying
>>> >> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do
>>> >> > and fixes
>>> >> > will make it to the next release right next month.
>>> >>
>>> >> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should
>>> >> not
>>> >> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software,
>>> >> not
>>> >> hurried crap.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is
>>> >> > quicker.
>>> >> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't >>
>>> > know
>>> >> > how
>>> >> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release
>>> >> > and I as
>>> >> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced
>>> >> > before
>>> >> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do
>>> >> > another
>>> >> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
>>> >>
>>> >> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very
>>> >> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not
>>> >> even a
>>> >> day or two notice?
>>> >>
>>> >> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC
>>> >> all
>>> >> the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my >>
>>> review.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Mark
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > simon
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can
>>> >> > actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3
>>> >> > at
>>> >> > least.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you
>>> >> > say,
>>> >> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - Mark
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer
>>> >> > <si...@gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Folks,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/lucene/dev/branches/**
>>> lucene_solr_4_3/<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/>
>>> >> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > simon
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release >> > >
>>> candidate
>>> >> > > in
>>> >> > > two weeks, I will.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ---------
>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<de...@lucene.apache.org>
>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<de...@lucene.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<de...@lucene.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<de...@lucene.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 4.3
Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@basetechnology.com>.
4.3... are we there yet? How much longer?!
-- Jack Krupansky
-----Original Message-----
From: Otis Gospodnetic
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:43 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org ; Simon Willnauer
Subject: Re: 4.3
Think Family :)
I told my wife and kids now, in April, that I'll be going to
conference in Berlin in early June. I'll still tell them about this N
times before I actually leave. I won't get in a taxi one morning
heading for the airport and tell her "Well, I told you I'd go back in
April". Well, I could try that, but I may not be allowed back home and
may have to stay in Berlin forever.
Otis
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Simon Willnauer
<si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wait, blockers? Sure we wait. Anything else I don't think we should wait
> for. after the release is before the release. Mark, you are right it's 6
> days but there are more committers than robert and all he said is he will
> do
> it in 2 weeks. I really feel this is a conflict of interests here at this
> point and if any other non-committer would have raised that there is one
> or
> two issue that could make it in we would have responded as usual that we
> don't wait or do quick fixes or whatever else came up in the last
> releases.
> It's a hell lot of work and if there is a blocker I am willing to do
> another
> one. if not I will call a vote in an hour or so.
>
> There will always be things we want to have in and we should not block a
> release because a specific person wants it in a release and that is not
> new
> isn't it?
>
> nothing stops you for doing a 4.3.1 in 2 weeks and we should do more
> frequent releases. if you have something serious, go volunteer and call a
> vote that's how it turned out in the last couple of releases we did and I
> think it's great.
>
> Erick, what is the issue?
>
> simon
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4.3, where does that weigh
>> in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with
>> this in.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky
>> <ja...@basetechnology.com> wrote:
>> > +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last
>> > time
>> > there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something
>> > in
>> > 4.2 but didn’t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but 4.2 was
>> > already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that
>> > situation.
>> >
>> > I like the idea of a more formal “two week” window from “feature
>> > [shove]
>> > freeze” to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that window. New
>> > features then continue on the main dot branch.
>> >
>> > And also maybe a loose “I/we would like to release in a month or so”
>> > notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature
>> > in
>> > before the two-week stabilization window kicks in.
>> >
>> > I would suggest that if anybody “planning” to release a 4.4 wants it a
>> > month
>> > after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I
>> > can
>> > see doing a patch release on a moment’s notice – for stabilization bug
>> > fixes
>> > only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since
>> > there
>> > are
>> > feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release
>> > should
>> > work at least as well as the previous dot release.
>> >
>> > -- Jack Krupansky
>> >
>> > From: Robert Muir
>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM
>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
>> > Subject: Re: 4.3
>> >
>> > I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict):
>> > 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute
>> > feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point.
>> > 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/whatever. I
>> > doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities
>> > contribute to
>> > a quality release.
>> >
>> > So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more
>> > days
>> > for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that
>> > only
>> > those changes to improve stability.
>> > If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too
>> > however
>> > I can.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer
>> >> <si...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by
>> >> > saying
>> >> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do
>> >> > and fixes
>> >> > will make it to the next release right next month.
>> >>
>> >> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should
>> >> not
>> >> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software,
>> >> not
>> >> hurried crap.
>> >>
>> >> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is
>> >> > quicker.
>> >> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't
>> >> > know
>> >> > how
>> >> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release
>> >> > and I as
>> >> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced
>> >> > before
>> >> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do
>> >> > another
>> >> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
>> >>
>> >> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very
>> >> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not
>> >> even a
>> >> day or two notice?
>> >>
>> >> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC
>> >> all
>> >> the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
>> >>
>> >> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my
>> >> review.
>> >>
>> >> - Mark
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > simon
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can
>> >> > actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3
>> >> > at
>> >> > least.
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you
>> >> > say,
>> >> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
>> >> >
>> >> > - Mark
>> >> >
>> >> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer
>> >> > <si...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Folks,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
>> >> > >
>> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
>> >> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
>> >> > >
>> >> > > simon
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release
>> >> > > candidate
>> >> > > in
>> >> > > two weeks, I will.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Otis Gospodnetic <ot...@gmail.com>.
Think Family :)
I told my wife and kids now, in April, that I'll be going to
conference in Berlin in early June. I'll still tell them about this N
times before I actually leave. I won't get in a taxi one morning
heading for the airport and tell her "Well, I told you I'd go back in
April". Well, I could try that, but I may not be allowed back home and
may have to stay in Berlin forever.
Otis
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Simon Willnauer
<si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wait, blockers? Sure we wait. Anything else I don't think we should wait
> for. after the release is before the release. Mark, you are right it's 6
> days but there are more committers than robert and all he said is he will do
> it in 2 weeks. I really feel this is a conflict of interests here at this
> point and if any other non-committer would have raised that there is one or
> two issue that could make it in we would have responded as usual that we
> don't wait or do quick fixes or whatever else came up in the last releases.
> It's a hell lot of work and if there is a blocker I am willing to do another
> one. if not I will call a vote in an hour or so.
>
> There will always be things we want to have in and we should not block a
> release because a specific person wants it in a release and that is not new
> isn't it?
>
> nothing stops you for doing a 4.3.1 in 2 weeks and we should do more
> frequent releases. if you have something serious, go volunteer and call a
> vote that's how it turned out in the last couple of releases we did and I
> think it's great.
>
> Erick, what is the issue?
>
> simon
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4.3, where does that weigh
>> in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with
>> this in.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky
>> <ja...@basetechnology.com> wrote:
>> > +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last time
>> > there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something
>> > in
>> > 4.2 but didn’t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but 4.2 was
>> > already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that
>> > situation.
>> >
>> > I like the idea of a more formal “two week” window from “feature [shove]
>> > freeze” to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that window. New
>> > features then continue on the main dot branch.
>> >
>> > And also maybe a loose “I/we would like to release in a month or so”
>> > notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature in
>> > before the two-week stabilization window kicks in.
>> >
>> > I would suggest that if anybody “planning” to release a 4.4 wants it a
>> > month
>> > after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I
>> > can
>> > see doing a patch release on a moment’s notice – for stabilization bug
>> > fixes
>> > only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since there
>> > are
>> > feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release
>> > should
>> > work at least as well as the previous dot release.
>> >
>> > -- Jack Krupansky
>> >
>> > From: Robert Muir
>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM
>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
>> > Subject: Re: 4.3
>> >
>> > I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict):
>> > 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute
>> > feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point.
>> > 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/whatever. I
>> > doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities
>> > contribute to
>> > a quality release.
>> >
>> > So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more
>> > days
>> > for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that only
>> > those changes to improve stability.
>> > If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too
>> > however
>> > I can.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer
>> >> <si...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by
>> >> > saying
>> >> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do
>> >> > and fixes
>> >> > will make it to the next release right next month.
>> >>
>> >> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should
>> >> not
>> >> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software,
>> >> not
>> >> hurried crap.
>> >>
>> >> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is
>> >> > quicker.
>> >> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't know
>> >> > how
>> >> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release
>> >> > and I as
>> >> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced
>> >> > before
>> >> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do
>> >> > another
>> >> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
>> >>
>> >> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very
>> >> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not
>> >> even a
>> >> day or two notice?
>> >>
>> >> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC
>> >> all
>> >> the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
>> >>
>> >> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my review.
>> >>
>> >> - Mark
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > simon
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can
>> >> > actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3
>> >> > at
>> >> > least.
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you
>> >> > say,
>> >> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
>> >> >
>> >> > - Mark
>> >> >
>> >> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer
>> >> > <si...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Folks,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
>> >> > >
>> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
>> >> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
>> >> > >
>> >> > > simon
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate
>> >> > > in
>> >> > > two weeks, I will.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.
See SOLR-4725. Basically I screwed up and introduced a change in
behavior whereby defining multiple cores with the same name or dataDir
will cause that core to refuse to load. Mark pointed out that having
multiple cores, though dangerous, is sometimes reasonable. I've got a
patch up that corrects this, and we're coordinating getting that in to
the codebase.
The change is that if you're using an old-style solr.xml file, you get
warnings for either of those conditions. If you're using the
auto-discover mode, you get warnings for two cores pointing to the
same data dir, and if multiple cores with the same name Solr refuses
to load.
Should easily get that in place by tomorrow, say noon EST which I
think fits comfortably under the 36 hour warning, thanks.
Erick
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Simon Willnauer
<si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wait, blockers? Sure we wait. Anything else I don't think we should wait
> for. after the release is before the release. Mark, you are right it's 6
> days but there are more committers than robert and all he said is he will do
> it in 2 weeks. I really feel this is a conflict of interests here at this
> point and if any other non-committer would have raised that there is one or
> two issue that could make it in we would have responded as usual that we
> don't wait or do quick fixes or whatever else came up in the last releases.
> It's a hell lot of work and if there is a blocker I am willing to do another
> one. if not I will call a vote in an hour or so.
>
> There will always be things we want to have in and we should not block a
> release because a specific person wants it in a release and that is not new
> isn't it?
>
> nothing stops you for doing a 4.3.1 in 2 weeks and we should do more
> frequent releases. if you have something serious, go volunteer and call a
> vote that's how it turned out in the last couple of releases we did and I
> think it's great.
>
> Erick, what is the issue?
>
> simon
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4.3, where does that weigh
>> in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with
>> this in.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky
>> <ja...@basetechnology.com> wrote:
>> > +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last time
>> > there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something
>> > in
>> > 4.2 but didn’t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but 4.2 was
>> > already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that
>> > situation.
>> >
>> > I like the idea of a more formal “two week” window from “feature [shove]
>> > freeze” to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that window. New
>> > features then continue on the main dot branch.
>> >
>> > And also maybe a loose “I/we would like to release in a month or so”
>> > notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature in
>> > before the two-week stabilization window kicks in.
>> >
>> > I would suggest that if anybody “planning” to release a 4.4 wants it a
>> > month
>> > after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I
>> > can
>> > see doing a patch release on a moment’s notice – for stabilization bug
>> > fixes
>> > only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since there
>> > are
>> > feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release
>> > should
>> > work at least as well as the previous dot release.
>> >
>> > -- Jack Krupansky
>> >
>> > From: Robert Muir
>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM
>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
>> > Subject: Re: 4.3
>> >
>> > I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict):
>> > 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute
>> > feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point.
>> > 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/whatever. I
>> > doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities
>> > contribute to
>> > a quality release.
>> >
>> > So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more
>> > days
>> > for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that only
>> > those changes to improve stability.
>> > If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too
>> > however
>> > I can.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer
>> >> <si...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by
>> >> > saying
>> >> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do
>> >> > and fixes
>> >> > will make it to the next release right next month.
>> >>
>> >> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should
>> >> not
>> >> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software,
>> >> not
>> >> hurried crap.
>> >>
>> >> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is
>> >> > quicker.
>> >> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't know
>> >> > how
>> >> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release
>> >> > and I as
>> >> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced
>> >> > before
>> >> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do
>> >> > another
>> >> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
>> >>
>> >> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very
>> >> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not
>> >> even a
>> >> day or two notice?
>> >>
>> >> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC
>> >> all
>> >> the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
>> >>
>> >> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my review.
>> >>
>> >> - Mark
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > simon
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can
>> >> > actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3
>> >> > at
>> >> > least.
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you
>> >> > say,
>> >> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
>> >> >
>> >> > - Mark
>> >> >
>> >> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer
>> >> > <si...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Folks,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
>> >> > >
>> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
>> >> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
>> >> > >
>> >> > > simon
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate
>> >> > > in
>> >> > > two weeks, I will.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
wait, blockers? Sure we wait. Anything else I don't think we should wait
for. after the release is before the release. Mark, you are right it's 6
days but there are more committers than robert and all he said is he will
do it in 2 weeks. I really feel this is a conflict of interests here at
this point and if any other non-committer would have raised that there is
one or two issue that could make it in we would have responded as usual
that we don't wait or do quick fixes or whatever else came up in the last
releases. It's a hell lot of work and if there is a blocker I am willing to
do another one. if not I will call a vote in an hour or so.
There will always be things we want to have in and we should not block a
release because a specific person wants it in a release and that is not new
isn't it?
nothing stops you for doing a 4.3.1 in 2 weeks and we should do more
frequent releases. if you have something serious, go volunteer and call a
vote that's how it turned out in the last couple of releases we did and I
think it's great.
Erick, what is the issue?
simon
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4.3, where does that weigh
> in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with
> this in.
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky
> <ja...@basetechnology.com> wrote:
> > +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last time
> > there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something in
> > 4.2 but didn’t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but 4.2 was
> > already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that
> situation.
> >
> > I like the idea of a more formal “two week” window from “feature [shove]
> > freeze” to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that window. New
> > features then continue on the main dot branch.
> >
> > And also maybe a loose “I/we would like to release in a month or so”
> > notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature in
> > before the two-week stabilization window kicks in.
> >
> > I would suggest that if anybody “planning” to release a 4.4 wants it a
> month
> > after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I
> can
> > see doing a patch release on a moment’s notice – for stabilization bug
> fixes
> > only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since there
> are
> > feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release
> should
> > work at least as well as the previous dot release.
> >
> > -- Jack Krupansky
> >
> > From: Robert Muir
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM
> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: 4.3
> >
> > I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict):
> > 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute
> > feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point.
> > 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/whatever. I
> > doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities
> contribute to
> > a quality release.
> >
> > So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more
> days
> > for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that only
> > those changes to improve stability.
> > If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too
> however
> > I can.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer <
> simon.willnauer@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by saying
> >> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do
> and fixes
> >> > will make it to the next release right next month.
> >>
> >> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should
> not
> >> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software, not
> >> hurried crap.
> >>
> >> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is
> quicker.
> >> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't know
> how
> >> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release
> and I as
> >> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced
> before
> >> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do another
> >> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
> >>
> >> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very
> >> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not
> even a
> >> day or two notice?
> >>
> >> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC
> all
> >> the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
> >>
> >> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my review.
> >>
> >> - Mark
> >>
> >> >
> >> > simon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can
> >> > actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 at
> >> > least.
> >> >
> >> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you say,
> >> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
> >> >
> >> > - Mark
> >> >
> >> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer <
> simon.willnauer@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Folks,
> >> > >
> >> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
> >> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> >> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
> >> > >
> >> > > simon
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate
> in
> >> > > two weeks, I will.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 4.3
Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.
Unfortunately I have one blocker issue for 4.3, where does that weigh
in? I can fix it tomorrow, but I'd really hate to have it go out with
this in.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Krupansky
<ja...@basetechnology.com> wrote:
> +1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last time
> there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something in
> 4.2 but didn’t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but 4.2 was
> already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that situation.
>
> I like the idea of a more formal “two week” window from “feature [shove]
> freeze” to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that window. New
> features then continue on the main dot branch.
>
> And also maybe a loose “I/we would like to release in a month or so”
> notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature in
> before the two-week stabilization window kicks in.
>
> I would suggest that if anybody “planning” to release a 4.4 wants it a month
> after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I can
> see doing a patch release on a moment’s notice – for stabilization bug fixes
> only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since there are
> feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release should
> work at least as well as the previous dot release.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> From: Robert Muir
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: 4.3
>
> I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict):
> 1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute
> feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point.
> 2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/whatever. I
> doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities contribute to
> a quality release.
>
> So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more days
> for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that only
> those changes to improve stability.
> If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too however
> I can.
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by saying
>> > "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do and fixes
>> > will make it to the next release right next month.
>>
>> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should not
>> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software, not
>> hurried crap.
>>
>> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is quicker.
>> > As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't know how
>> > often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release and I as
>> > often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced before
>> > the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do another
>> > release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
>>
>> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very
>> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not even a
>> day or two notice?
>>
>> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC all
>> the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
>>
>> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my review.
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>> >
>> > simon
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can
>> > actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 at
>> > least.
>> >
>> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you say,
>> > I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
>> >
>> > - Mark
>> >
>> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Folks,
>> > >
>> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
>> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
>> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
>> > >
>> > > simon
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in
>> > > two weeks, I will.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@basetechnology.com>.
+1 for stabilization only for 4.3 at this point. It seems like last time there was at least one last minute feature change that broke something in 4.2 but didn’t get noticed for a few days (which is normal) but 4.2 was already out by then. A two-week window would have prevented that situation.
I like the idea of a more formal “two week” window from “feature [shove] freeze” to RC. And only stabilization is permitted in that window. New features then continue on the main dot branch.
And also maybe a loose “I/we would like to release in a month or so” notification, which gives feature guys two weeks to get their feature in before the two-week stabilization window kicks in.
I would suggest that if anybody “planning” to release a 4.4 wants it a month after 4.3, they should notify the community as soon as 4.3 goes out. I can see doing a patch release on a moment’s notice – for stabilization bug fixes only, but dot feature releases should get a little more care since there are feature changes in play and production guys expect that a dot release should work at least as well as the previous dot release.
-- Jack Krupansky
From: Robert Muir
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:47 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 4.3
I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict):
1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point.
2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/whatever. I doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities contribute to a quality release.
So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more days for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that only those changes to improve stability.
If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too however I can.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by saying "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do and fixes will make it to the next release right next month.
Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should not focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software, not hurried crap.
> Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is quicker. As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't know how often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release and I as often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced before the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do another release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not even a day or two notice?
If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC all the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my review.
- Mark
>
> simon
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 at least.
>
> Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you say, I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
>
> - Mark
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
> >
> > simon
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in two weeks, I will.
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
I see a few issues myself (that dont need to cause a big conflict):
1. Simon doesn't want things to destabilize due to last minute
feature-shoving. this is a real problem and I totally see his point.
2. Mark wants some time to do some cleanup/checks/bugfixing/whatever. I
doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities contribute
to a quality release.
So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more
days for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branch to that
only those changes to improve stability.
If this causes timing issues with release management, I'll help too however
I can.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by saying
> "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do and
> fixes will make it to the next release right next month.
>
> Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should not
> focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software, not
> hurried crap.
>
> > Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is quicker.
> As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't know how
> often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release and I as
> often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced before
> the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do another
> release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
>
> Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very
> reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not even a
> day or two notice?
>
> If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC all
> the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
>
> I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my review.
>
> - Mark
>
> >
> > simon
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can
> actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 at
> least.
> >
> > Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you say,
> I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
> >
> > - Mark
> >
> > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> > > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
> > >
> > > simon
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in
> two weeks, I will.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 4.3
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by saying "oh I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do and fixes will make it to the next release right next month.
Review and bug fixes are not last minute changes. Pretending we should not focus on a release is ridicules. I want to release quality software, not hurried crap.
> Robert say I will do one in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is quicker. As always folks say we release once somebody volunteers. I don't know how often I had something in the pipeline that I wanted in the release and I as often we had this discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced before the RC was up and I think this is how it should be. You can do another release soon in about 3 week or whatever.
Dude, asking for a small amount of planning on a release seems very reasonable. Wake up today and surprise "release" is ridiculous. Not even a day or two notice?
If this is how it goes, I'm happy to just randomly start tossing up RC all the time with no discussion or notice to the list.
I'll probably toss one up a few days after you do after I do my review.
- Mark
>
> simon
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 at least.
>
> Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you say, I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
>
> - Mark
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
> >
> > simon
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in two weeks, I will.
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by saying "oh
I will wait 2 days" We should release early and often as we do and fixes
will make it to the next release right next month. Robert say I will do one
in the next 2 weeks unless somebody is quicker. As always folks say we
release once somebody volunteers. I don't know how often I had something in
the pipeline that I wanted in the release and I as often we had this
discussion. The 4.2 release was not even announced before the RC was up and
I think this is how it should be. You can do another release soon in about
3 week or whatever.
simon
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can
> actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 at
> least.
>
> Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you say, I'm
> rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
>
> - Mark
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
> >
> > simon
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in
> two weeks, I will.
> >
> >
>
>
Re: 4.3
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
How about a short heads up so that people working on 4.3 issues can actually wrap up? I know I have review I want to finish before 4.3 at least.
Robert gave a warning of 2 weeks, then less than a week later you say, I'm rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap?
- Mark
On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
>
> simon
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in two weeks, I will.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Shalin Shekhar Mangar <sh...@gmail.com>.
+1
I'm investigating the ShardSplitTest failures.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidworks.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer
> <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
>
> There are quite a few people still finishing things up for 4.3
> Seems like we should wait another week and re-cut the branch after it
> seems like everyone is ready.
>
> -Yonik
> http://lucidworks.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
RE: 4.3
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
+1
Robert and Me are also fixing some inconsistencies with numerics and doc-values.
Uwe
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yseeley@gmail.com [mailto:yseeley@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik
> Seeley
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:32 PM
> To: Lucene Dev; Simon Willnauer
> Subject: Re: 4.3
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer
> <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> > I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
>
> There are quite a few people still finishing things up for 4.3 Seems like we
> should wait another week and re-cut the branch after it seems like everyone
> is ready.
>
> -Yonik
> http://lucidworks.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidworks.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer
> <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
>> I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
>
> There are quite a few people still finishing things up for 4.3
> Seems like we should wait another week and re-cut the branch after it
> seems like everyone is ready.
+1 (I want to get SOLR-3251 in.)
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidworks.com>.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer
<si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
There are quite a few people still finishing things up for 4.3
Seems like we should wait another week and re-cut the branch after it
seems like everyone is ready.
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 4.3
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
Folks,
I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC
simon
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a release candidate in two
> weeks, I will.
>
>