lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Merge 3.0.3 into trunk and other forward progress
Date Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:32:36 GMT
I don't know if we should do that - the generics is quite different from the line by line port.
I would vote we do it personally - I know others are not ok with it.

What say other people?

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Scott Lombard
Sent: 12/23/2011 11:21 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Merge 3.0.3 into trunk and other forward progress

The Anonymous class issue is a readability issue not a functional change.
So the release could go forward without it.  The work should be continued in
the 3.0.3 version.

Prescott are you planning on merging the 2.9.4g into the trunk then 3.0.3?


Scott




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 4:37 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Merge 3.0.3 into trunk and other
> forward progress
>
> Im not as familiar with the g branch - the notice issue is
> current, seems like the general incubator has been digging
> everyone for it lately.
>
> Im not sure about the anon or the generics unfortunately
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Rory Plaire
> Sent: 12/22/2011 12:58 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Merge 3.0.3 into trunk and other
> forward progress
>
> I was just looking at the issues for 2.9.4g since I have a
> bit of time to put against them in the coming week. They are here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET/fixforversion/
> 12316479. Are these current? If so I can just keep going in
> the direction DIGY set to help close them.
>
> -r
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:12 AM, michael herndon <
> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
>
> > +1  I believe you tagged the latest during release. Code be
> reverted
> > +or a
> > new branch to create a patch for 2.9.4 if something major happens
> > since we have scm in place, so I think merging it would not
> be damaging in any way.
> >
> > for the 2.9.4g branch, I would do a quick scan to see if
> there are any
> > outstanding tickets or input from DIGY or anyone else who
> put in major
> > time on that branch. If there are things that are
> outstanding, throw
> > together a quick list that people can pull from and work through.
> >
> > I can throw up some tweets and point towards this thread if
> you would like.
> >
> > - Michael
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Prescott Nasser
> > <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Its been pretty quiet as of late. I'd like to merge 3.0.3
> into the
> > > trunk and wipe out the branch.
> > >
> > > Im going to do this by lazy consensus since responses are
> a little
> > > difficult to come by. Im going to do this Jan 5th - after the
> > > holidays to give everyone the opportunity to respond if
> they think
> > > this is a bad
> > idea.
> > > I will do it quicker if people respond it is a good idea however.
> > >
> > > I am also going to package up 2.9.4g the week between the two
> > > holidays - if there is anything that needs to get done
> lets get it taken care of.
> > >
> > > Finally, if I dont hear any other way in the next day or two I am
> > > going
> > to
> > > copy the Java lucene jira issues for 3.0.3 release into
> our jira so
> > > that
> > we
> > > can track and start knocking them down.
> > >
> > > Happy holidays all,
> > > Prescott
> > >
> > > Sent from my Windows Phone
> >
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message