lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@amptools.net>
Subject RE: 3.6
Date Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:58:09 GMT
I was thinking you meant a .bat file till I really thought about the
use of the word "inscribed".

There is always GIT-SVN. Beyond compare and GIT-SVN is what I have been
using for merges at work with a svn repo.

Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Prescott Nasser
Sent: 9/14/2012 2:27 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: RE: 3.6
You guys... I'm going to get Itamar a bat inscribed with GIT so he can
just bring that to all conversations with SVN.
I think it probably pays to do a merge right after we tag it and get
the artifacts voted by the community. That way anything that gets
brought up in our voting that is fixes and re-cut, will make it to the
trunk.

> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:43:26 -0700
> Subject: Re: 3.6
> From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> Oh wait.  Nevermind...it looks like I did, at least in the 3.0.3
> branch.  Hmm, we actually have quite a few changes that are present
> only in 3.0.3, that should probably be merged into trunk.  Should we
> merge all changes in now or after we release?  Either way, I strongly
> dislike merging in SVN...ugh
>
> What was that you were saying about git, Itamar? :)
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Currens
> <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Prescott,
> >
> > We had decided to update the scripts/version information for 3.0.3 a
> > while back, and I just realized I did all of the work and never
> > committed it.  Yikes.  I thought I did, but I must have been
> > distracted when I was doing it, and never actually completed it.
> > We're still waiting on the Spatial stuff right, so I can get this in
> > before release?  I don't think it will affect the build/packaging
> > steps.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christopher
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com> wrote:
> >> This is why they invented git :)
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/compare/5261b571...e4402c22c
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Christopher Currens <
> >> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm not much of an SVN guy myself, so what I wound up doing was pulling
> >>> down the two branches and used windiff on the actual directories.  I could
> >>> quickly see which files were added, removed, changed, or untouched.  I
> >>> guess you could do the same things with SVN probably, but I don't know how
> >>> or if it is a painless process or not.
> >>>
> >>> The biggest thing would be having multiple people working on and dividing
> >>> up the work.  A lot of times, you have classes that span namespaces, so
I
> >>> guess you'd have to have a policy where you'd stick to a namespace and if
> >>> you require something that someone else is porting, just stub it out for
> >>> later.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >>> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > What was your strategy for upgrading? Just getting a list of all the
svn
> >>> > changes between 3.0.3 tag and 3.6? I'm terrible with SVN, but is there
an
> >>> > easy way to compare the tags? (I feel like there must be)
> >>> >
> >>> > > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:02:33 -0700
> >>> > > Subject: Re: 3.6
> >>> > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> >>> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I used 2.9.4 as a base.  Some files were so bad, though, that
I ported
> >>> > them
> >>> > > from scratch.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> >>> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >>> > >wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk
quickly
> >>> about
> >>> > > > 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial
code
> >>> > base -
> >>> > > > Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did
you use
> >>> 2.9.4
> >>> > > > and update the code base?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>

Mime
View raw message