You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com> on 2012/09/03 19:10:56 UTC
3.0.3
Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the 3.0.3 nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the 3.0.3 branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Still having hard time getting my environment setup. Can any of you guys
with commit karma commit a small change to one of the files in trunk (add a
row to .gitignore or something), this should resolve some issue I'm having.
Thanks :)
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>wrote:
> Due to the SVN change my local repos were invalidated, been re-cloning for
> the past 12 hours and still not completed.
>
> This will have to be delayed a couple more days, sorry about that.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>wrote:
>
>> Lol
>>
>> Prescott, I should have it all for you by Monday
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> pos - I have a mental image of playing chess with you all as the pieces
>>> now..
>>>
>>> > Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:49:42 -0700
>>> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
>>> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> >
>>> > I get why svn and website needed to move, but why did you move Itamar
>>> as
>>> > well? IGNORE ME. That was a terrible joke. English is fun.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Itamar, svn and website are moved. I have artifacts more or less
>>> ready to
>>> > > roll - where do you stand with the Spatial updates? Should we wait a
>>> bit to
>>> > > get them or will you need considerable more time?
>>> > >
>>> > > > From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > Subject: RE: 3.0.3
>>> > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:54:44 -0700
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I'm sure at a minimum we'd need a vote - probably should get
>>> community
>>> > > consensus as well. At the moment I'm trying to keep up with all the
>>> other
>>> > > changes moving from incubator to a tlp. I'll reach out to infra on
>>> the
>>> > > process though.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:43:56 +0300
>>> > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
>>> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > No JIRA tickets, a couple of locally fixed bugs, a fix for this
>>> > > > > issue<
>>> > >
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13447823#comment-13447823
>>> > > >,
>>> > > > > and bringing Spatial4n up to speed with the latest official
>>> release of
>>> > > > > spatial4j. I'm mid-work on all of those. This is mostly updates
>>> but 2
>>> > > of
>>> > > > > the bugs may severely affect results and sorting.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Speaking of SVN - what would be the process for pushing towards
>>> a move
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > git? would we need a vote?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > I was going to put artifacts up for a vote after moving SVN
>>> this
>>> > > weekend,
>>> > > > > > but found out I needed INFRA to move it. I was waiting,
>>> because we
>>> > > have
>>> > > > > > some links in the help files that I didn't want to update
>>> without
>>> > > the new
>>> > > > > > svn set.
>>> > > > > > Do you have JIRA tickets for the bugs? How severe are they? I
>>> guess
>>> > > we
>>> > > > > > could wait, anyone else have opinions?
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:59 +0300
>>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
>>> > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can release
>>> 3.0.3 next
>>> > > > > > Monday
>>> > > > > > > that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple of more
>>> last
>>> > > minute
>>> > > > > > bug
>>> > > > > > > fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk with the
>>> working
>>> > > > > > branch.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>> > > > > > >wrote:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3.
>>> Unless
>>> > > someone
>>> > > > > > has
>>> > > > > > > > objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day
>>> or
>>> > > so. We've
>>> > > > > > > > kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little
>>> fix",
>>> > > at this
>>> > > > > > > > point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
>>> > > > > > > > ~P
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
>>> > > > > > > > > From: sisve@devhost.se
>>> > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without
>>> any
>>> > > > > > problems.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
>>> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504>
>>> and
>>> > > > > > LUCENENET-506
>>> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506>
>>> which
>>> > > could be
>>> > > > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the
>>> > > > > > FastVectorHighlighter,
>>> > > > > > > > > adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they
>>> > > should be
>>> > > > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very
>>> little
>>> > > > > > testing, on
>>> > > > > > > > > the other hand, how much more testing will the
>>> > > FastVectorHighlighter
>>> > > > > > get
>>> > > > > > > > > for the 3.6-release?
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough
>>> with
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > 3.0.3
>>> > > > > > > > nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were
>>> made to
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > 3.0.3
>>> > > > > > > > branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Due to the SVN change my local repos were invalidated, been re-cloning for
the past 12 hours and still not completed.
This will have to be delayed a couple more days, sorry about that.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>wrote:
> Lol
>
> Prescott, I should have it all for you by Monday
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>> pos - I have a mental image of playing chess with you all as the pieces
>> now..
>>
>> > Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:49:42 -0700
>> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>> > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
>> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> >
>> > I get why svn and website needed to move, but why did you move Itamar as
>> > well? IGNORE ME. That was a terrible joke. English is fun.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Itamar, svn and website are moved. I have artifacts more or less
>> ready to
>> > > roll - where do you stand with the Spatial updates? Should we wait a
>> bit to
>> > > get them or will you need considerable more time?
>> > >
>> > > > From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> > > > Subject: RE: 3.0.3
>> > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:54:44 -0700
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm sure at a minimum we'd need a vote - probably should get
>> community
>> > > consensus as well. At the moment I'm trying to keep up with all the
>> other
>> > > changes moving from incubator to a tlp. I'll reach out to infra on the
>> > > process though.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:43:56 +0300
>> > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>> > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
>> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No JIRA tickets, a couple of locally fixed bugs, a fix for this
>> > > > > issue<
>> > >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13447823#comment-13447823
>> > > >,
>> > > > > and bringing Spatial4n up to speed with the latest official
>> release of
>> > > > > spatial4j. I'm mid-work on all of those. This is mostly updates
>> but 2
>> > > of
>> > > > > the bugs may severely affect results and sorting.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Speaking of SVN - what would be the process for pushing towards a
>> move
>> > > to
>> > > > > git? would we need a vote?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I was going to put artifacts up for a vote after moving SVN this
>> > > weekend,
>> > > > > > but found out I needed INFRA to move it. I was waiting, because
>> we
>> > > have
>> > > > > > some links in the help files that I didn't want to update
>> without
>> > > the new
>> > > > > > svn set.
>> > > > > > Do you have JIRA tickets for the bugs? How severe are they? I
>> guess
>> > > we
>> > > > > > could wait, anyone else have opinions?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:59 +0300
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>> > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
>> > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can release
>> 3.0.3 next
>> > > > > > Monday
>> > > > > > > that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple of more
>> last
>> > > minute
>> > > > > > bug
>> > > > > > > fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk with the
>> working
>> > > > > > branch.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> > > > > > >wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3.
>> Unless
>> > > someone
>> > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day
>> or
>> > > so. We've
>> > > > > > > > kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little
>> fix",
>> > > at this
>> > > > > > > > point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
>> > > > > > > > ~P
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
>> > > > > > > > > From: sisve@devhost.se
>> > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without
>> any
>> > > > > > problems.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
>> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and
>> > > > > > LUCENENET-506
>> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506>
>> which
>> > > could be
>> > > > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the
>> > > > > > FastVectorHighlighter,
>> > > > > > > > > adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they
>> > > should be
>> > > > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very
>> little
>> > > > > > testing, on
>> > > > > > > > > the other hand, how much more testing will the
>> > > FastVectorHighlighter
>> > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > > > for the 3.6-release?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough
>> with
>> > > the
>> > > > > > 3.0.3
>> > > > > > > > nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were
>> made to
>> > > the
>> > > > > > 3.0.3
>> > > > > > > > branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
>
>
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Lol
Prescott, I should have it all for you by Monday
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> pos - I have a mental image of playing chess with you all as the pieces
> now..
>
> > Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:49:42 -0700
> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >
> > I get why svn and website needed to move, but why did you move Itamar as
> > well? IGNORE ME. That was a terrible joke. English is fun.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Itamar, svn and website are moved. I have artifacts more or less ready
> to
> > > roll - where do you stand with the Spatial updates? Should we wait a
> bit to
> > > get them or will you need considerable more time?
> > >
> > > > From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: 3.0.3
> > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:54:44 -0700
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure at a minimum we'd need a vote - probably should get
> community
> > > consensus as well. At the moment I'm trying to keep up with all the
> other
> > > changes moving from incubator to a tlp. I'll reach out to infra on the
> > > process though.
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:43:56 +0300
> > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > No JIRA tickets, a couple of locally fixed bugs, a fix for this
> > > > > issue<
> > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13447823#comment-13447823
> > > >,
> > > > > and bringing Spatial4n up to speed with the latest official
> release of
> > > > > spatial4j. I'm mid-work on all of those. This is mostly updates
> but 2
> > > of
> > > > > the bugs may severely affect results and sorting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of SVN - what would be the process for pushing towards a
> move
> > > to
> > > > > git? would we need a vote?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I was going to put artifacts up for a vote after moving SVN this
> > > weekend,
> > > > > > but found out I needed INFRA to move it. I was waiting, because
> we
> > > have
> > > > > > some links in the help files that I didn't want to update without
> > > the new
> > > > > > svn set.
> > > > > > Do you have JIRA tickets for the bugs? How severe are they? I
> guess
> > > we
> > > > > > could wait, anyone else have opinions?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:59 +0300
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can release 3.0.3
> next
> > > > > > Monday
> > > > > > > that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple of more
> last
> > > minute
> > > > > > bug
> > > > > > > fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk with the
> working
> > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3. Unless
> > > someone
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day or
> > > so. We've
> > > > > > > > kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little
> fix",
> > > at this
> > > > > > > > point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
> > > > > > > > ~P
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
> > > > > > > > > From: sisve@devhost.se
> > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without
> any
> > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and
> > > > > > LUCENENET-506
> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506>
> which
> > > could be
> > > > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the
> > > > > > FastVectorHighlighter,
> > > > > > > > > adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they
> > > should be
> > > > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very
> little
> > > > > > testing, on
> > > > > > > > > the other hand, how much more testing will the
> > > FastVectorHighlighter
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > for the 3.6-release?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
RE: 3.0.3
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
pos - I have a mental image of playing chess with you all as the pieces now..
> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:49:42 -0700
> Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> I get why svn and website needed to move, but why did you move Itamar as
> well? IGNORE ME. That was a terrible joke. English is fun.
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Itamar, svn and website are moved. I have artifacts more or less ready to
> > roll - where do you stand with the Spatial updates? Should we wait a bit to
> > get them or will you need considerable more time?
> >
> > > From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: 3.0.3
> > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:54:44 -0700
> > >
> > > I'm sure at a minimum we'd need a vote - probably should get community
> > consensus as well. At the moment I'm trying to keep up with all the other
> > changes moving from incubator to a tlp. I'll reach out to infra on the
> > process though.
> > >
> > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:43:56 +0300
> > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > No JIRA tickets, a couple of locally fixed bugs, a fix for this
> > > > issue<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13447823#comment-13447823
> > >,
> > > > and bringing Spatial4n up to speed with the latest official release of
> > > > spatial4j. I'm mid-work on all of those. This is mostly updates but 2
> > of
> > > > the bugs may severely affect results and sorting.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of SVN - what would be the process for pushing towards a move
> > to
> > > > git? would we need a vote?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I was going to put artifacts up for a vote after moving SVN this
> > weekend,
> > > > > but found out I needed INFRA to move it. I was waiting, because we
> > have
> > > > > some links in the help files that I didn't want to update without
> > the new
> > > > > svn set.
> > > > > Do you have JIRA tickets for the bugs? How severe are they? I guess
> > we
> > > > > could wait, anyone else have opinions?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:59 +0300
> > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can release 3.0.3 next
> > > > > Monday
> > > > > > that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple of more last
> > minute
> > > > > bug
> > > > > > fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk with the working
> > > > > branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3. Unless
> > someone
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day or
> > so. We've
> > > > > > > kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little fix",
> > at this
> > > > > > > point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
> > > > > > > ~P
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
> > > > > > > > From: sisve@devhost.se
> > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without any
> > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and
> > > > > LUCENENET-506
> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506> which
> > could be
> > > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the
> > > > > FastVectorHighlighter,
> > > > > > > > adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they
> > should be
> > > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very little
> > > > > testing, on
> > > > > > > > the other hand, how much more testing will the
> > FastVectorHighlighter
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > for the 3.6-release?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with
> > the
> > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to
> > the
> > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.
I get why svn and website needed to move, but why did you move Itamar as
well? IGNORE ME. That was a terrible joke. English is fun.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> Itamar, svn and website are moved. I have artifacts more or less ready to
> roll - where do you stand with the Spatial updates? Should we wait a bit to
> get them or will you need considerable more time?
>
> > From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: 3.0.3
> > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:54:44 -0700
> >
> > I'm sure at a minimum we'd need a vote - probably should get community
> consensus as well. At the moment I'm trying to keep up with all the other
> changes moving from incubator to a tlp. I'll reach out to infra on the
> process though.
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:43:56 +0300
> > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > >
> > > No JIRA tickets, a couple of locally fixed bugs, a fix for this
> > > issue<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13447823#comment-13447823
> >,
> > > and bringing Spatial4n up to speed with the latest official release of
> > > spatial4j. I'm mid-work on all of those. This is mostly updates but 2
> of
> > > the bugs may severely affect results and sorting.
> > >
> > > Speaking of SVN - what would be the process for pushing towards a move
> to
> > > git? would we need a vote?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was going to put artifacts up for a vote after moving SVN this
> weekend,
> > > > but found out I needed INFRA to move it. I was waiting, because we
> have
> > > > some links in the help files that I didn't want to update without
> the new
> > > > svn set.
> > > > Do you have JIRA tickets for the bugs? How severe are they? I guess
> we
> > > > could wait, anyone else have opinions?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:59 +0300
> > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can release 3.0.3 next
> > > > Monday
> > > > > that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple of more last
> minute
> > > > bug
> > > > > fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk with the working
> > > > branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3. Unless
> someone
> > > > has
> > > > > > objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day or
> so. We've
> > > > > > kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little fix",
> at this
> > > > > > point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
> > > > > > ~P
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
> > > > > > > From: sisve@devhost.se
> > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without any
> > > > problems.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
> > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and
> > > > LUCENENET-506
> > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506> which
> could be
> > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the
> > > > FastVectorHighlighter,
> > > > > > > adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they
> should be
> > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very little
> > > > testing, on
> > > > > > > the other hand, how much more testing will the
> FastVectorHighlighter
> > > > get
> > > > > > > for the 3.6-release?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with
> the
> > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to
> the
> > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
>
RE: 3.0.3
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
Itamar, svn and website are moved. I have artifacts more or less ready to roll - where do you stand with the Spatial updates? Should we wait a bit to get them or will you need considerable more time?
> From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: RE: 3.0.3
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:54:44 -0700
>
> I'm sure at a minimum we'd need a vote - probably should get community consensus as well. At the moment I'm trying to keep up with all the other changes moving from incubator to a tlp. I'll reach out to infra on the process though.
>
> > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:43:56 +0300
> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > From: itamar@code972.com
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >
> > No JIRA tickets, a couple of locally fixed bugs, a fix for this
> > issue<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13447823#comment-13447823>,
> > and bringing Spatial4n up to speed with the latest official release of
> > spatial4j. I'm mid-work on all of those. This is mostly updates but 2 of
> > the bugs may severely affect results and sorting.
> >
> > Speaking of SVN - what would be the process for pushing towards a move to
> > git? would we need a vote?
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > I was going to put artifacts up for a vote after moving SVN this weekend,
> > > but found out I needed INFRA to move it. I was waiting, because we have
> > > some links in the help files that I didn't want to update without the new
> > > svn set.
> > > Do you have JIRA tickets for the bugs? How severe are they? I guess we
> > > could wait, anyone else have opinions?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:59 +0300
> > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can release 3.0.3 next
> > > Monday
> > > > that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple of more last minute
> > > bug
> > > > fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk with the working
> > > branch.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3. Unless someone
> > > has
> > > > > objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day or so. We've
> > > > > kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little fix", at this
> > > > > point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
> > > > > ~P
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
> > > > > > From: sisve@devhost.se
> > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without any
> > > problems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and
> > > LUCENENET-506
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506> which could be
> > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the
> > > FastVectorHighlighter,
> > > > > > adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they should be
> > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very little
> > > testing, on
> > > > > > the other hand, how much more testing will the FastVectorHighlighter
> > > get
> > > > > > for the 3.6-release?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the
> > > 3.0.3
> > > > > nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the
> > > 3.0.3
> > > > > branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
RE: 3.0.3
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
I'm sure at a minimum we'd need a vote - probably should get community consensus as well. At the moment I'm trying to keep up with all the other changes moving from incubator to a tlp. I'll reach out to infra on the process though.
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:43:56 +0300
> Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> No JIRA tickets, a couple of locally fixed bugs, a fix for this
> issue<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13447823#comment-13447823>,
> and bringing Spatial4n up to speed with the latest official release of
> spatial4j. I'm mid-work on all of those. This is mostly updates but 2 of
> the bugs may severely affect results and sorting.
>
> Speaking of SVN - what would be the process for pushing towards a move to
> git? would we need a vote?
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I was going to put artifacts up for a vote after moving SVN this weekend,
> > but found out I needed INFRA to move it. I was waiting, because we have
> > some links in the help files that I didn't want to update without the new
> > svn set.
> > Do you have JIRA tickets for the bugs? How severe are they? I guess we
> > could wait, anyone else have opinions?
> >
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:59 +0300
> > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > >
> > > Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can release 3.0.3 next
> > Monday
> > > that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple of more last minute
> > bug
> > > fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk with the working
> > branch.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3. Unless someone
> > has
> > > > objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day or so. We've
> > > > kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little fix", at this
> > > > point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
> > > > ~P
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
> > > > > From: sisve@devhost.se
> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without any
> > problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and
> > LUCENENET-506
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506> which could be
> > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the
> > FastVectorHighlighter,
> > > > > adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they should be
> > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very little
> > testing, on
> > > > > the other hand, how much more testing will the FastVectorHighlighter
> > get
> > > > > for the 3.6-release?
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the
> > 3.0.3
> > > > nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the
> > 3.0.3
> > > > branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
No JIRA tickets, a couple of locally fixed bugs, a fix for this
issue<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13447823#comment-13447823>,
and bringing Spatial4n up to speed with the latest official release of
spatial4j. I'm mid-work on all of those. This is mostly updates but 2 of
the bugs may severely affect results and sorting.
Speaking of SVN - what would be the process for pushing towards a move to
git? would we need a vote?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> I was going to put artifacts up for a vote after moving SVN this weekend,
> but found out I needed INFRA to move it. I was waiting, because we have
> some links in the help files that I didn't want to update without the new
> svn set.
> Do you have JIRA tickets for the bugs? How severe are they? I guess we
> could wait, anyone else have opinions?
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:59 +0300
> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > From: itamar@code972.com
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >
> > Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can release 3.0.3 next
> Monday
> > that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple of more last minute
> bug
> > fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk with the working
> branch.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3. Unless someone
> has
> > > objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day or so. We've
> > > kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little fix", at this
> > > point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
> > > ~P
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
> > > > From: sisve@devhost.se
> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > > >
> > > > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without any
> problems.
> > > >
> > > > There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and
> LUCENENET-506
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506> which could be
> > > > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the
> FastVectorHighlighter,
> > > > adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they should be
> > > > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very little
> testing, on
> > > > the other hand, how much more testing will the FastVectorHighlighter
> get
> > > > for the 3.6-release?
> > > >
> > > > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the
> 3.0.3
> > > nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the
> 3.0.3
> > > branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
RE: 3.0.3
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
I was going to put artifacts up for a vote after moving SVN this weekend, but found out I needed INFRA to move it. I was waiting, because we have some links in the help files that I didn't want to update without the new svn set.
Do you have JIRA tickets for the bugs? How severe are they? I guess we could wait, anyone else have opinions?
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:59 +0300
> Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can release 3.0.3 next Monday
> that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple of more last minute bug
> fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk with the working branch.
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3. Unless someone has
> > objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day or so. We've
> > kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little fix", at this
> > point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
> > ~P
> >
> >
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
> > > From: sisve@devhost.se
> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> > >
> > > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without any problems.
> > >
> > > There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and LUCENENET-506
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506> which could be
> > > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the FastVectorHighlighter,
> > > adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they should be
> > > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very little testing, on
> > > the other hand, how much more testing will the FastVectorHighlighter get
> > > for the 3.6-release?
> > >
> > > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the 3.0.3
> > nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the 3.0.3
> > branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
> > >
> >
> >
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can release 3.0.3 next Monday
that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple of more last minute bug
fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk with the working branch.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3. Unless someone has
> objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day or so. We've
> kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little fix", at this
> point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
> ~P
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
> > From: sisve@devhost.se
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> >
> > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without any problems.
> >
> > There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and LUCENENET-506
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506> which could be
> > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the FastVectorHighlighter,
> > adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they should be
> > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very little testing, on
> > the other hand, how much more testing will the FastVectorHighlighter get
> > for the 3.6-release?
> >
> > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the 3.0.3
> nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the 3.0.3
> branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
> >
>
>
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Simon Svensson <si...@devhost.se>.
I've committed the mentioned FastVectorHighlighter-fixes to the 3.0.3
branch and set the fix-version in jira to 3.0.3 for these issues.
On 2012-09-04 21:29, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3. Unless someone has objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day or so. We've kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little fix", at this point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
> ~P
>
>
>
>> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
>> From: sisve@devhost.se
>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>
>> I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without any problems.
>>
>> There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and LUCENENET-506
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506> which could be
>> applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the FastVectorHighlighter,
>> adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they should be
>> applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very little testing, on
>> the other hand, how much more testing will the FastVectorHighlighter get
>> for the 3.6-release?
>>
>> On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>>>
>>> Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the 3.0.3 nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the 3.0.3 branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
>
RE: 3.0.3
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
If you guys have time could you merge them into 3.0.3. Unless someone has objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts in the next day or so. We've kind of pushed this off long enough for the "last little fix", at this point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
~P
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
> From: sisve@devhost.se
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>
> I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without any problems.
>
> There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and LUCENENET-506
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506> which could be
> applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the FastVectorHighlighter,
> adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they should be
> applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very little testing, on
> the other hand, how much more testing will the FastVectorHighlighter get
> for the 3.6-release?
>
> On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the 3.0.3 nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the 3.0.3 branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
>
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Simon Svensson <si...@devhost.se>.
I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for some time without any problems.
There were some commits to the trunk for LUCENENET-504
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504> and LUCENENET-506
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506> which could be
applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect the FastVectorHighlighter,
adding support for more query-types. I'm not sure if they should be
applied to the 3.0.3-release since they have had very little testing, on
the other hand, how much more testing will the FastVectorHighlighter get
for the 3.6-release?
On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
>
> Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the 3.0.3 nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the 3.0.3 branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Zachary Gramana <zg...@gmail.com>.
I noticed two Java-style property names are still kicking: FieldDoc.fields and Document.fields. I've attached a quick patch.
I also removed Document.fields_ForNUnit in this patch, while I was in there.
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
My fixes to trunk can be just merged into the 3.0.3 branch and released as
is, no need for another RC as far as I'm concerned. The fix was a simple
bugfix.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> I fixed a couple in trunk
> On Sep 3, 2012 1:10 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the 3.0.3
>> nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the 3.0.3
>> branch. Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P
>>
>
>
Re: 3.0.3
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@gmail.com>.
I fixed a couple in trunk
On Sep 3, 2012 1:10 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Alright, I'm back from vacation - are we happy enough with the 3.0.3 nuget
> packages? It looks like no other adjustments were made to the 3.0.3 branch.
> Should we cut the release artifacts? ~P