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 Fri, 21 Sep 2012 01:45:27 GMT
Itamar - you happy with the commits? or do you need more time?
 > From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: RE: 3.0.3
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:51:07 -0700
> 
> 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