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 Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:54:44 GMT
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