lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: 3.0.3
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2012 04:51:07 GMT
Alright, sorry - just got home, doing this was first on my list..
 > Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 06:50:24 +0300
> Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> 
> No matter, I'm good now. Thanks..
> 
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > If nobody beats me to it, ill do it tonight
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> > ________________________________
> > From: Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > Sent: 9/19/2012 1:05 PM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
> >
> > 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 <itamar@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 <itamar@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 <geobmx540@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
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
 		 	   		  
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message