lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: 3.0.3
Date Sun, 16 Sep 2012 08:02:51 GMT
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