You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net> on 2015/12/16 21:08:51 UTC
5.3.2 bug fix release
There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related fixes but
I'm sure there are others too.
Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release and cut
an RC next Tuesday.
--
Anshum Gupta
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Noble Paul <no...@gmail.com>.
what's the status of 5.3.2 release ?
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> Thanks for committing those David.
>
> I just brought everything in synch on the 5.3.2 change log section on all
> the branches.
>
> I have also committed everything but I want to also commit SOLR-8470 before
> cutting the RC (unless someone objects). In case someone has something else
> to back port, kindly do so today.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:38 PM, david.w.smiley@gmail.com
> <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yikes; I’m sure that was painful.
>>
>> So I just back-ported a couple issues, SOLR-8340 & SOLR-8059. I was about
>> to manually keep the 5.3.2 section in branch_5x & trunk in sync but then
>> thought better of it. Might as well wait until 5.3.2 is voted and then do
>> it, since there are bound to be others who want to do the same, so why
>> bother with the intermediate bookkeeping.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry for the long delay but I burnt my hand and so have been MIA. It's
>>> better now so I'll port the issues and cut an RC on Wednesday.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've added the section for 5.3.2 in all the branches. Kindly back-port
>>>> stuff that you think makes sense to go into a 'bug-fix' release for 5.3.1
>>>> only.
>>>>
>>>> I think it'd make sense to duplicate entries for JIRAs we back port.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems like Noble ran addVersion.py for 5.3.2 on the lucene_solr_5_3
>>>>> branch during the 5.3.1 release.
>>>>> I can now run it for branch_5x and trunk with the old change id but
>>>>> there are a ton of property changes to multiple files. Can someone confirm
>>>>> that it'd be fine? The addVersion on 5.3.2, that I'm trying to merge onto
>>>>> branch_5x and trunk was done before 5.4 was released.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, the change log entry for 5.3.2 is right above 5.3.1 and not
>>>>> chronological i.e. at the top. I think that is how it should be unless
>>>>> someone has some different ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>>>>>> > There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
>>>>>> > opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related
>>>>>> > fixes
>>>>>> > but I'm sure there are others too.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release
>>>>>> > and cut an RC next Tuesday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> are not yet backported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188
>>>>>> applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2
>>>>>> section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>> has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I
>>>>>> believe it's a benign change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>>>>>> All changes were backported from 5.4.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bug Fixes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name)
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and
>>>>>> branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file
>>>>>> should already contain the full change descriptions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>>>>>> The following issues were backported from 5.4.0:
>>>>>> LUCENE-XXXX
>>>>>> LUCENE-YYYY
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Shawn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>> --
>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Noble Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>.
Thanks for committing those David.
I just brought everything in synch on the 5.3.2 change log section on all
the branches.
I have also committed everything but I want to also commit SOLR-8470 before
cutting the RC (unless someone objects). In case someone has something else
to back port, kindly do so today.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:38 PM, david.w.smiley@gmail.com <
david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yikes; I’m sure that was painful.
>
> So I just back-ported a couple issues, SOLR-8340 & SOLR-8059. I was about
> to manually keep the 5.3.2 section in branch_5x & trunk in sync but then
> thought better of it. Might as well wait until 5.3.2 is voted and then do
> it, since there are bound to be others who want to do the same, so why
> bother with the intermediate bookkeeping.
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for the long delay but I burnt my hand and so have been MIA. It's
>> better now so I'll port the issues and cut an RC on Wednesday.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've added the section for 5.3.2 in all the branches. Kindly back-port
>>> stuff that you think makes sense to go into a 'bug-fix' release for 5.3.1
>>> only.
>>>
>>> I think it'd make sense to duplicate entries for JIRAs we back port.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems like Noble ran addVersion.py for 5.3.2 on the lucene_solr_5_3
>>>> branch during the 5.3.1 release.
>>>> I can now run it for branch_5x and trunk with the old change id but
>>>> there are a ton of property changes to multiple files. Can someone confirm
>>>> that it'd be fine? The addVersion on 5.3.2, that I'm trying to merge onto
>>>> branch_5x and trunk was done before 5.4 was released.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the change log entry for 5.3.2 is right above 5.3.1 and not
>>>> chronological i.e. at the top. I think that is how it should be unless
>>>> someone has some different ideas.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>>>>> > There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
>>>>> > opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related
>>>>> fixes
>>>>> > but I'm sure there are others too.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release
>>>>> > and cut an RC next Tuesday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes that
>>>>> are not yet backported.
>>>>>
>>>>> I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188
>>>>> applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2
>>>>> section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that nothing
>>>>> has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I
>>>>> believe it's a benign change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch:
>>>>>
>>>>> ----
>>>>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>>>>> All changes were backported from 5.4.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug Fixes
>>>>>
>>>>> * LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name)
>>>>> ----
>>>>>
>>>>> If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and
>>>>> branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file
>>>>> should already contain the full change descriptions:
>>>>>
>>>>> ----
>>>>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>>>>> The following issues were backported from 5.4.0:
>>>>> LUCENE-XXXX
>>>>> LUCENE-YYYY
>>>>> ----
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Shawn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
> --
> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>
--
Anshum Gupta
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by "david.w.smiley@gmail.com" <da...@gmail.com>.
Yikes; I’m sure that was painful.
So I just back-ported a couple issues, SOLR-8340 & SOLR-8059. I was about
to manually keep the 5.3.2 section in branch_5x & trunk in sync but then
thought better of it. Might as well wait until 5.3.2 is voted and then do
it, since there are bound to be others who want to do the same, so why
bother with the intermediate bookkeeping.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> Sorry for the long delay but I burnt my hand and so have been MIA. It's
> better now so I'll port the issues and cut an RC on Wednesday.
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I've added the section for 5.3.2 in all the branches. Kindly back-port
>> stuff that you think makes sense to go into a 'bug-fix' release for 5.3.1
>> only.
>>
>> I think it'd make sense to duplicate entries for JIRAs we back port.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like Noble ran addVersion.py for 5.3.2 on the lucene_solr_5_3
>>> branch during the 5.3.1 release.
>>> I can now run it for branch_5x and trunk with the old change id but
>>> there are a ton of property changes to multiple files. Can someone confirm
>>> that it'd be fine? The addVersion on 5.3.2, that I'm trying to merge onto
>>> branch_5x and trunk was done before 5.4 was released.
>>>
>>> Also, the change log entry for 5.3.2 is right above 5.3.1 and not
>>> chronological i.e. at the top. I think that is how it should be unless
>>> someone has some different ideas.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>>>> > There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
>>>> > opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related fixes
>>>> > but I'm sure there are others too.
>>>> >
>>>> > Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release
>>>> > and cut an RC next Tuesday.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes that
>>>> are not yet backported.
>>>>
>>>> I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188
>>>> applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2
>>>> section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that nothing
>>>> has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I
>>>> believe it's a benign change.
>>>>
>>>> Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch:
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>>>> All changes were backported from 5.4.0.
>>>>
>>>> Bug Fixes
>>>>
>>>> * LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name)
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and
>>>> branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file
>>>> should already contain the full change descriptions:
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>>>> The following issues were backported from 5.4.0:
>>>> LUCENE-XXXX
>>>> LUCENE-YYYY
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Shawn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>
--
Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>.
Sorry for the long delay but I burnt my hand and so have been MIA. It's
better now so I'll port the issues and cut an RC on Wednesday.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
wrote:
> I've added the section for 5.3.2 in all the branches. Kindly back-port
> stuff that you think makes sense to go into a 'bug-fix' release for 5.3.1
> only.
>
> I think it'd make sense to duplicate entries for JIRAs we back port.
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Seems like Noble ran addVersion.py for 5.3.2 on the lucene_solr_5_3
>> branch during the 5.3.1 release.
>> I can now run it for branch_5x and trunk with the old change id but there
>> are a ton of property changes to multiple files. Can someone confirm that
>> it'd be fine? The addVersion on 5.3.2, that I'm trying to merge onto
>> branch_5x and trunk was done before 5.4 was released.
>>
>> Also, the change log entry for 5.3.2 is right above 5.3.1 and not
>> chronological i.e. at the top. I think that is how it should be unless
>> someone has some different ideas.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>>> > There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
>>> > opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related fixes
>>> > but I'm sure there are others too.
>>> >
>>> > Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release
>>> > and cut an RC next Tuesday.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes that
>>> are not yet backported.
>>>
>>> I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188
>>> applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2
>>> section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that nothing
>>> has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut.
>>>
>>> Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I
>>> believe it's a benign change.
>>>
>>> Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch:
>>>
>>> ----
>>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>>> All changes were backported from 5.4.0.
>>>
>>> Bug Fixes
>>>
>>> * LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name)
>>> ----
>>>
>>> If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and
>>> branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file
>>> should already contain the full change descriptions:
>>>
>>> ----
>>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>>> The following issues were backported from 5.4.0:
>>> LUCENE-XXXX
>>> LUCENE-YYYY
>>> ----
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shawn
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>
--
Anshum Gupta
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>.
I've added the section for 5.3.2 in all the branches. Kindly back-port
stuff that you think makes sense to go into a 'bug-fix' release for 5.3.1
only.
I think it'd make sense to duplicate entries for JIRAs we back port.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
wrote:
> Seems like Noble ran addVersion.py for 5.3.2 on the lucene_solr_5_3 branch
> during the 5.3.1 release.
> I can now run it for branch_5x and trunk with the old change id but there
> are a ton of property changes to multiple files. Can someone confirm that
> it'd be fine? The addVersion on 5.3.2, that I'm trying to merge onto
> branch_5x and trunk was done before 5.4 was released.
>
> Also, the change log entry for 5.3.2 is right above 5.3.1 and not
> chronological i.e. at the top. I think that is how it should be unless
> someone has some different ideas.
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org> wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>> > There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
>> > opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related fixes
>> > but I'm sure there are others too.
>> >
>> > Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release
>> > and cut an RC next Tuesday.
>>
>> Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes that
>> are not yet backported.
>>
>> I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188
>> applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2
>> section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that nothing
>> has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut.
>>
>> Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I
>> believe it's a benign change.
>>
>> Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch:
>>
>> ----
>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>> All changes were backported from 5.4.0.
>>
>> Bug Fixes
>>
>> * LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name)
>> ----
>>
>> If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and
>> branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file
>> should already contain the full change descriptions:
>>
>> ----
>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>> The following issues were backported from 5.4.0:
>> LUCENE-XXXX
>> LUCENE-YYYY
>> ----
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shawn
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>
--
Anshum Gupta
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>.
Seems like Noble ran addVersion.py for 5.3.2 on the lucene_solr_5_3 branch
during the 5.3.1 release.
I can now run it for branch_5x and trunk with the old change id but there
are a ton of property changes to multiple files. Can someone confirm that
it'd be fine? The addVersion on 5.3.2, that I'm trying to merge onto
branch_5x and trunk was done before 5.4 was released.
Also, the change log entry for 5.3.2 is right above 5.3.1 and not
chronological i.e. at the top. I think that is how it should be unless
someone has some different ideas.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> > There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
> > opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related fixes
> > but I'm sure there are others too.
> >
> > Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release
> > and cut an RC next Tuesday.
>
> Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes that
> are not yet backported.
>
> I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188
> applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2
> section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that nothing
> has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut.
>
> Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I
> believe it's a benign change.
>
> Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch:
>
> ----
> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
> All changes were backported from 5.4.0.
>
> Bug Fixes
>
> * LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name)
> ----
>
> If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and
> branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file
> should already contain the full change descriptions:
>
> ----
> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
> The following issues were backported from 5.4.0:
> LUCENE-XXXX
> LUCENE-YYYY
> ----
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
Anshum Gupta
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.
Anshum,
If there happens to be a security bugfix release, I'd like to have
SOLR-8373 included as well. It is a deal breaker for anyone who uses
Kerberos support and wants to have more than one solr node per host.
Thanks,
Ishan
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> Why don't people just upgrade to 5.4? Why do we need another release in
> the 5.3.x range?
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 09:12 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> > On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> > > There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
> > > opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related fixes
> > > but I'm sure there are others too.
> > >
> > > Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release
> > > and cut an RC next Tuesday.
> >
> > Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes that
> > are not yet backported.
> >
> > I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188
> > applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2
> > section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that nothing
> > has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut.
> >
> > Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I
> > believe it's a benign change.
> >
> > Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch:
> >
> > ----
> > ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
> > All changes were backported from 5.4.0.
> >
> > Bug Fixes
> >
> > * LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name)
> > ----
> >
> > If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and
> > branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file
> > should already contain the full change descriptions:
> >
> > ----
> > ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
> > The following issues were backported from 5.4.0:
> > LUCENE-XXXX
> > LUCENE-YYYY
> > ----
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shawn
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com>.
Historical aside: I was thinking we’d never produced a bugfix release on a previous minor branch, but I went looking and found that 4.9.1, released 9/21/14, was just such a one: 4.10.0 was released on 9/4/14. AFAICT Mike McCandless initially proposed a 4.9.1 release on 9/16/14 here: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5907?focusedCommentId=14136216&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14136216>.
Steve
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Why don't people just upgrade to 5.4? Why do we need another release in
> the 5.3.x range?
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 09:12 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>>> There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
>>> opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related fixes
>>> but I'm sure there are others too.
>>>
>>> Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release
>>> and cut an RC next Tuesday.
>>
>> Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes that
>> are not yet backported.
>>
>> I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188
>> applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2
>> section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that nothing
>> has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut.
>>
>> Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I
>> believe it's a benign change.
>>
>> Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch:
>>
>> ----
>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>> All changes were backported from 5.4.0.
>>
>> Bug Fixes
>>
>> * LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name)
>> ----
>>
>> If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and
>> branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file
>> should already contain the full change descriptions:
>>
>> ----
>> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
>> The following issues were backported from 5.4.0:
>> LUCENE-XXXX
>> LUCENE-YYYY
>> ----
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shawn
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by "david.w.smiley@gmail.com" <da...@gmail.com>.
I’d like to backport SOLR-8059 & SOLR-8060 (same as SOLR-8340): NPEs that
can happen in DebugComponent & HighlightComponent when
distrib.singlePass=true (which is implied under certain conditions even if
not explicitly =true).
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com> wrote:
> If there is a 5.3.2 release, we should probably also backport this one:
>
> SOLR-8269 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8269>: Upgrade
> commons-collections to 3.2.2. This fixes a known serialization vulnerability
>
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>
> 17. des. 2015 kl. 07.35 skrev Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>:
>
> Yes, there was already a 5.3.2 version in JIRA. I will start back-porting
> stuff to the lucene_solr_5_3 branch later in the day today.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Noble Paul <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Agree with Shawn here.
>>
>> If a company has already done the work to upgrade their systems to
>> 5.3.1 , they would rather have a bug fix for the old version .
>>
>> So anshum, is there a 5.3.2 version created in JIRA? can we start
>> tagging issues to that release so that we can have a definitive list
>> of bugs to be backported
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Thanks for explaining it so well Shawn :)
>> >
>> > Yes, that's pretty much the reason why it makes sense to have a 5.3.2
>> > release.
>> >
>> > We might even need a 5.4.1 after that as there are more security bug
>> fixes
>> > that are getting committed as the feature is being tried by users and
>> bugs
>> > are being reported.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 12/16/2015 2:15 PM, Upayavira wrote:
>> >> > Why don't people just upgrade to 5.4? Why do we need another release
>> in
>> >> > the 5.3.x range?
>> >>
>> >> I am using a third-party custom Solr plugin. The latest version of
>> that
>> >> plugin (which I have on my dev server) has only been certified to work
>> >> with Solr 5.3.x. There's a chance that it won't work with 5.4, so I
>> >> cannot use that version yet. If I happen to need any of the fixes that
>> >> are being backported, an official 5.3.2 release would allow me to use
>> >> official binaries, which will make my managers much more comfortable
>> >> than a version that I compile myself.
>> >>
>> >> Additionally, the IT change policies in place for many businesses
>> >> require a huge amount of QA work for software upgrades, but those
>> >> policies may be relaxed for hotfixes and upgrades that are *only*
>> >> bugfixes. For users operating under those policies, a bugfix release
>> >> will allow them to fix bugs immediately, rather than spend several
>> weeks
>> >> validating a new minor release.
>> >>
>> >> There is a huge amount of interest in the new security features in
>> >> 5.3.x, functionality that has a number of critical problems. Lots of
>> >> users who need those features have already deployed 5.3.1. Many of the
>> >> critical problems are fixed in 5.4, and these are the fixes that Anshum
>> >> wants to make available in 5.3.2. If a user is in either of the
>> >> situations that I outlined above, upgrading to 5.4 may be unrealistic.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Shawn
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Anshum Gupta
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> Noble Paul
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>
>
> --
Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com>.
If there is a 5.3.2 release, we should probably also backport this one:
SOLR-8269 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8269>: Upgrade commons-collections to 3.2.2. This fixes a known serialization vulnerability
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> 17. des. 2015 kl. 07.35 skrev Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>:
>
> Yes, there was already a 5.3.2 version in JIRA. I will start back-porting stuff to the lucene_solr_5_3 branch later in the day today.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Noble Paul <noble.paul@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Agree with Shawn here.
>
> If a company has already done the work to upgrade their systems to
> 5.3.1 , they would rather have a bug fix for the old version .
>
> So anshum, is there a 5.3.2 version created in JIRA? can we start
> tagging issues to that release so that we can have a definitive list
> of bugs to be backported
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net <ma...@anshumgupta.net>> wrote:
> > Thanks for explaining it so well Shawn :)
> >
> > Yes, that's pretty much the reason why it makes sense to have a 5.3.2
> > release.
> >
> > We might even need a 5.4.1 after that as there are more security bug fixes
> > that are getting committed as the feature is being tried by users and bugs
> > are being reported.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Shawn Heisey <apache@elyograg.org <ma...@elyograg.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/16/2015 2:15 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> >> > Why don't people just upgrade to 5.4? Why do we need another release in
> >> > the 5.3.x range?
> >>
> >> I am using a third-party custom Solr plugin. The latest version of that
> >> plugin (which I have on my dev server) has only been certified to work
> >> with Solr 5.3.x. There's a chance that it won't work with 5.4, so I
> >> cannot use that version yet. If I happen to need any of the fixes that
> >> are being backported, an official 5.3.2 release would allow me to use
> >> official binaries, which will make my managers much more comfortable
> >> than a version that I compile myself.
> >>
> >> Additionally, the IT change policies in place for many businesses
> >> require a huge amount of QA work for software upgrades, but those
> >> policies may be relaxed for hotfixes and upgrades that are *only*
> >> bugfixes. For users operating under those policies, a bugfix release
> >> will allow them to fix bugs immediately, rather than spend several weeks
> >> validating a new minor release.
> >>
> >> There is a huge amount of interest in the new security features in
> >> 5.3.x, functionality that has a number of critical problems. Lots of
> >> users who need those features have already deployed 5.3.1. Many of the
> >> critical problems are fixed in 5.4, and these are the fixes that Anshum
> >> wants to make available in 5.3.2. If a user is in either of the
> >> situations that I outlined above, upgrading to 5.4 may be unrealistic.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Shawn
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Noble Paul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>.
Yes, there was already a 5.3.2 version in JIRA. I will start back-porting
stuff to the lucene_solr_5_3 branch later in the day today.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Noble Paul <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree with Shawn here.
>
> If a company has already done the work to upgrade their systems to
> 5.3.1 , they would rather have a bug fix for the old version .
>
> So anshum, is there a 5.3.2 version created in JIRA? can we start
> tagging issues to that release so that we can have a definitive list
> of bugs to be backported
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
> > Thanks for explaining it so well Shawn :)
> >
> > Yes, that's pretty much the reason why it makes sense to have a 5.3.2
> > release.
> >
> > We might even need a 5.4.1 after that as there are more security bug
> fixes
> > that are getting committed as the feature is being tried by users and
> bugs
> > are being reported.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/16/2015 2:15 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> >> > Why don't people just upgrade to 5.4? Why do we need another release
> in
> >> > the 5.3.x range?
> >>
> >> I am using a third-party custom Solr plugin. The latest version of that
> >> plugin (which I have on my dev server) has only been certified to work
> >> with Solr 5.3.x. There's a chance that it won't work with 5.4, so I
> >> cannot use that version yet. If I happen to need any of the fixes that
> >> are being backported, an official 5.3.2 release would allow me to use
> >> official binaries, which will make my managers much more comfortable
> >> than a version that I compile myself.
> >>
> >> Additionally, the IT change policies in place for many businesses
> >> require a huge amount of QA work for software upgrades, but those
> >> policies may be relaxed for hotfixes and upgrades that are *only*
> >> bugfixes. For users operating under those policies, a bugfix release
> >> will allow them to fix bugs immediately, rather than spend several weeks
> >> validating a new minor release.
> >>
> >> There is a huge amount of interest in the new security features in
> >> 5.3.x, functionality that has a number of critical problems. Lots of
> >> users who need those features have already deployed 5.3.1. Many of the
> >> critical problems are fixed in 5.4, and these are the fixes that Anshum
> >> wants to make available in 5.3.2. If a user is in either of the
> >> situations that I outlined above, upgrading to 5.4 may be unrealistic.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Shawn
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Noble Paul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
Anshum Gupta
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Noble Paul <no...@gmail.com>.
Agree with Shawn here.
If a company has already done the work to upgrade their systems to
5.3.1 , they would rather have a bug fix for the old version .
So anshum, is there a 5.3.2 version created in JIRA? can we start
tagging issues to that release so that we can have a definitive list
of bugs to be backported
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> Thanks for explaining it so well Shawn :)
>
> Yes, that's pretty much the reason why it makes sense to have a 5.3.2
> release.
>
> We might even need a 5.4.1 after that as there are more security bug fixes
> that are getting committed as the feature is being tried by users and bugs
> are being reported.
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/16/2015 2:15 PM, Upayavira wrote:
>> > Why don't people just upgrade to 5.4? Why do we need another release in
>> > the 5.3.x range?
>>
>> I am using a third-party custom Solr plugin. The latest version of that
>> plugin (which I have on my dev server) has only been certified to work
>> with Solr 5.3.x. There's a chance that it won't work with 5.4, so I
>> cannot use that version yet. If I happen to need any of the fixes that
>> are being backported, an official 5.3.2 release would allow me to use
>> official binaries, which will make my managers much more comfortable
>> than a version that I compile myself.
>>
>> Additionally, the IT change policies in place for many businesses
>> require a huge amount of QA work for software upgrades, but those
>> policies may be relaxed for hotfixes and upgrades that are *only*
>> bugfixes. For users operating under those policies, a bugfix release
>> will allow them to fix bugs immediately, rather than spend several weeks
>> validating a new minor release.
>>
>> There is a huge amount of interest in the new security features in
>> 5.3.x, functionality that has a number of critical problems. Lots of
>> users who need those features have already deployed 5.3.1. Many of the
>> critical problems are fixed in 5.4, and these are the fixes that Anshum
>> wants to make available in 5.3.2. If a user is in either of the
>> situations that I outlined above, upgrading to 5.4 may be unrealistic.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shawn
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Noble Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Anshum Gupta <an...@anshumgupta.net>.
Thanks for explaining it so well Shawn :)
Yes, that's pretty much the reason why it makes sense to have a 5.3.2
release.
We might even need a 5.4.1 after that as there are more security bug fixes
that are getting committed as the feature is being tried by users and bugs
are being reported.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 2:15 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> > Why don't people just upgrade to 5.4? Why do we need another release in
> > the 5.3.x range?
>
> I am using a third-party custom Solr plugin. The latest version of that
> plugin (which I have on my dev server) has only been certified to work
> with Solr 5.3.x. There's a chance that it won't work with 5.4, so I
> cannot use that version yet. If I happen to need any of the fixes that
> are being backported, an official 5.3.2 release would allow me to use
> official binaries, which will make my managers much more comfortable
> than a version that I compile myself.
>
> Additionally, the IT change policies in place for many businesses
> require a huge amount of QA work for software upgrades, but those
> policies may be relaxed for hotfixes and upgrades that are *only*
> bugfixes. For users operating under those policies, a bugfix release
> will allow them to fix bugs immediately, rather than spend several weeks
> validating a new minor release.
>
> There is a huge amount of interest in the new security features in
> 5.3.x, functionality that has a number of critical problems. Lots of
> users who need those features have already deployed 5.3.1. Many of the
> critical problems are fixed in 5.4, and these are the fixes that Anshum
> wants to make available in 5.3.2. If a user is in either of the
> situations that I outlined above, upgrading to 5.4 may be unrealistic.
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
Anshum Gupta
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>.
On 12/16/2015 2:15 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> Why don't people just upgrade to 5.4? Why do we need another release in
> the 5.3.x range?
I am using a third-party custom Solr plugin. The latest version of that
plugin (which I have on my dev server) has only been certified to work
with Solr 5.3.x. There's a chance that it won't work with 5.4, so I
cannot use that version yet. If I happen to need any of the fixes that
are being backported, an official 5.3.2 release would allow me to use
official binaries, which will make my managers much more comfortable
than a version that I compile myself.
Additionally, the IT change policies in place for many businesses
require a huge amount of QA work for software upgrades, but those
policies may be relaxed for hotfixes and upgrades that are *only*
bugfixes. For users operating under those policies, a bugfix release
will allow them to fix bugs immediately, rather than spend several weeks
validating a new minor release.
There is a huge amount of interest in the new security features in
5.3.x, functionality that has a number of critical problems. Lots of
users who need those features have already deployed 5.3.1. Many of the
critical problems are fixed in 5.4, and these are the fixes that Anshum
wants to make available in 5.3.2. If a user is in either of the
situations that I outlined above, upgrading to 5.4 may be unrealistic.
Thanks,
Shawn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Why don't people just upgrade to 5.4? Why do we need another release in
the 5.3.x range?
Upayavira
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 09:12 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> > There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
> > opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related fixes
> > but I'm sure there are others too.
> >
> > Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release
> > and cut an RC next Tuesday.
>
> Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes that
> are not yet backported.
>
> I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188
> applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2
> section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that nothing
> has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut.
>
> Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I
> believe it's a benign change.
>
> Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch:
>
> ----
> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
> All changes were backported from 5.4.0.
>
> Bug Fixes
>
> * LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name)
> ----
>
> If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and
> branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file
> should already contain the full change descriptions:
>
> ----
> ======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
> The following issues were backported from 5.4.0:
> LUCENE-XXXX
> LUCENE-YYYY
> ----
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: 5.3.2 bug fix release
Posted by Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>.
On 12/16/2015 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> There are a bunch of important bug fixes that call for a 5.3.2 in my
> opinion. I'm specifically talking about security plugins related fixes
> but I'm sure there are others too.
>
> Unless someone else wants to do it, I'd volunteer to do the release
> and cut an RC next Tuesday.
Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I assume these must be fixes that
are not yet backported.
I happen to have the 5.3 branch on my dev system, with SOLR-6188
applied. It is already up to date. There's nothing in the 5.3.2
section of either CHANGES.txt file. The svn log indicates that nothing
has been backported since the 5.3.1 release was cut.
Perhaps SOLR-6188 could be added to the list of fixes to backport. I
believe it's a benign change.
Thinking about CHANGES.txt, this might work for the 5.3 branch:
----
======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
All changes were backported from 5.4.0.
Bug Fixes
* LUCENE-XXXX: A description (Committer Name)
----
If we decide it's a good idea to mention the release in trunk and
branch_5x, something like the following might work, because that file
should already contain the full change descriptions:
----
======================= Lucene 5.3.2 =======================
The following issues were backported from 5.4.0:
LUCENE-XXXX
LUCENE-YYYY
----
Thanks,
Shawn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org